National security agency calls to simplify rules relating to their powers and functions should be placed under the microscope, a former spy boss has warned.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Dennis Richardson, who delivered a landmark review of Australia's national security laws in late 2020, said it was critical any pushes to streamline the more than 2000 pages of legislation that apply to intelligence powers be properly scrutinised by governments of the day.
The eminent public figure told an administrative law conference on Friday morning that while the national intelligence community was highly professional, it had often sought to simplify laws introduced for oversight, deeming them "administrative burdens".
He had heard the term uttered on many occasions during his time sitting in on meetings, and while undertaking the review, but said it often didn't stand up to further scrutiny.
"What was argued [by national intelligence communities] to be administrative burden was often a deliberately imposed safeguard," Mr Richardson said.
He pointed to proposals for legislative clarification, which he described as "amounting to no more than a bid to extend powers or functions".
"We warned that government should be sceptical of calls for legislative clarity as, very often, such claims do not withstand even modest scrutiny," he said.
Mr Richardson's review described the laws covering the intercepting and monitoring of electronic communication as "unnecessarily complex", and needing to be modernised and simplified.
Powers and definitions across different agencies also needed consistency, it found.
A bill based on the review's more than 200 recommendations was introduced to Parliament late last year, with the implementation of the suite of reforms expected to take place over the next five years.
The respected former public servant, who headed ASIO for nine years until the mid-2000s, said it was understandable agencies were frustrated over the size and complexity of the legislative framework they have to work in.
But it needed to be balanced against the need for a transparent liberal democracy.
"For example, one agency proposed a legislative change so that it could save eight-tenths of one full-time employee's time over the course of the year," Mr Richardson said.
"This was simply absurd in respect of an agency of well over 1000 people."
READ MORE:
In the 18 years between the September 11 attacks on the US and August 2019, more than 120 acts were passed in Parliament relating to the legislative framework of the national intelligence community.
That total figure includes more than 14,500 individual amendments to the laws.
Mr Richardson said a lot of the laws and amendments need to be brought together in order to reduce unnecessary complexities.
"We just love our legislation and if it doesn't have enough detail in it, we look to add detail," he said.
"[National intelligence agencies] do not need legislation to spell out exactly what they should do in all circumstances.
"That asks the impossible of Parliament, and it leads to laws that are complex, prescriptive and impenetrable to both agencies, and the public, too."