Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Keeping an eye on the watchers

By David MacGibbon - posted Wednesday, 15 September 1999


I believe the appropriate system for Australia would be a committee of parliamentarians appointed by the Prime Minister, as opposed to a parliamentary committee where members are answerable directly to Parliament.

A committee of five senior senators and members drawn from the Government and Opposition appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, would satisfy our needs.

The Prime Minister has the means to select those who satisfy security requirements and the right to appoint therefore carries with it the right of removal.

Advertisement

The duties of the committee - which would report to the Prime Minister and through his office to the Parliament - would be defined as "the power to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of ASIO, ASIS, DSD, DIO and ONA.

Such a remit would give adequate powers to satisfy the requirements of accountability and at the same time preserve the agencies from having to expose any operational details.

Opponents of parliamentary oversight argue that if it is introduced then it should be only in a limited way and restricted to those organizations where field activity is involved for the collection of intelligence - ASIO and ASIS.

These are the agencies where human lives are at risk and where most opportunities exist for the law to be broken.

Analytical office-bound agencies such as DIO, ONA and DSD, should be excluded. But this argument is fallacious as the Wispelaire case shows.

Proposals for the introduction of over-sight procedures meet no opposition with the Parliament. Relevant ministers and members of all parties agree to the need. The only opposition comes from within the bureaucracy who wish to retain the power that flows from controlling sources of information.

Advertisement

A parliamentary committee brings two further advantages to what is an inward looking secret group. It brings fresh ideas and insights and it also acts as a safety valve for disaffected agents. One of the great risks comes from disaffected personnel feeling they can get no redress for their grievances.

Australians entrust substantial powers over their liberties to their intelligence services and therefore must be sure of the highest sense of integrity and prudence.

They need the assurance of adequate parliamentary oversight.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David MacGibbon was a Liberal Party Senator for Queensland and takes a keen interest in Defence and Foreign Affairs matters.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy