Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, , 3:56:59 to 4:04:33
The committee examines the development of new legislation to provide the ADF with clear legal authority to intercept and down drones over military facilities.
Topics: Law reform, Public safety, National security
Speakers: James Paterson, Meghan Quinn, Celia Perkins, Francesca Rush, Speaker 23, Interjection
speak to security incident reporting in the 2526 uh financial year. Um uh we had 204 incident reports of uh UAS security incidents. >> Um uh in 2425 it was 141. So that's that step up we're seeing. Uh this financial year to date we've had 42 incident reports.
>> Okay. Um as you say that is quite a step up. >> Um are you able to break those numbers down by defense base or facility?
>> Uh we can take that on notice.
>> Yeah. But you collected in that form and
>> Yes. >> We'll extract that from uh the security reporting.
>> Um can you go back any further than 2425 when you
>> Uh in 2324 we had 56 incident reports and in 2223 we had 19.
>> Okay. So obviously we're on quite a steep curve, but this has been happening for some time. >> Wh why is it that it is not until now this this month that legislation has been introduced to give our ADF members the legal authority to take it down if this has been happening for five six
>> So we've had a series of uh responses including regulation that was put in place at the end of last year >> uh that provided additional >> um uh sort of framework and powers. uh and we've
>> but not sufficient as I understand it.
>> Uh they have some gaps in them because the regulation can't override certain aspects of legislation. >> Uh and so uh and it was clear at the time when the regulations were being worked through that it would provide some cover but not full cover because we needed to work through the legislative process. The legislation package that's before parliament has been in gestation for quite some time. It's a complex piece of legislation. It's important that we take the opportunity to get it right uh to modernize uh aspects not just on the security side but also on the capability development side. Uh we have worked as expeditiously as possible to have that package ready for government and as you say it's been introduced for consideration this week. We have also been working um separate to that to work with other regulatory authorities to increase our capabilities including with Casser in particular for them to be able to delegate some authorities uh to the air force to be able to take some activities. So it's been active considerations uh in you know not so it's not the the case that this is um it recent we've been work the department and government have under government instruction have been working on this for a matter of months and years.
>> Sure. But um a matter of months, this has been going on for years. And you know, my understanding, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that it is legally unclear whether ADF members had the authority to bring these drones down in these recent incidents, including at RAF Williamtown, and therefore they were not able to be brought down.
>> Uh so it depends on the modality and method of of engaging with um with with uh drones. Uh and it depends whether they're in the air, over airfields, or on the you know, groundbased operations. So, so it is a complicated regulatory architecture that we're operating in because um the legislation across different aspects were not were not drafted with the knowledge uh of uh uncreed aerial systems. So,
>> sure, but my understanding is that it it is was not legally clear that the commanding officer of these bases could issue an order to a defense member to bring these drones down. Is that true or
not true? It depends on the method to which they'll bring them down and the circumstances in which they
>> That's what I mean by not clear.
>> Uh well there was clarity that it was possible in certain circumstances and not possible in other circumstances.
>> So in these circumstances let's say take RFI or any other instance. Has there been a time when there's been drones over bases where it was not legally permissible to issue that order?
Senator, the orders were not issued uh over the days you were talking about because we did not feel we had the lawful authorities to respond.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh I now have the appropriate delegations from Kazzer to respond over defense airfields.
>> Okay. Thank you. So that's why I was asking the question, right? If it's not legally clear, then clearly regulatory or legislative change was necessary. And this is not a new issue that's just cropped up this week or this month or this year. It's been going on for some time. So come back to my question when these incidents first started escalating in you know the early 2020s why wasn't legislation uh introduced or regulations issued to deal with that problem. Why is it only now that we're getting into this financial year that we're contemplating
>> So we we've been working on this issue working through the complexities. It is not straightforward uh the because of the overlay of different legislative and regulatory environments. So this process has been going on and we have been working through it.
>> When did it start? when did this process start? When did government
>> I mean the the the actual framework for the safety of and uh security zones etc kind of certainly started years ago.
>> Um Senator Fran Rush, Chief Council of Defense. The arrangements in relation to um what you've seen before Parliament this week have been being evolved since for some years now. Um we had a number of ex public consultations from about 2023 onwards. This issue we have been working on in terms of the interim solution and the obviously this issue which is introduced before parliament now gives us the whole solution but the interim solution has been worked on for the best part of a year as well.
>> Remind me when that those rigs were issued by the assistant minister
>> um around late last year. I think it was December. I'll check the day.
>> Okay. Thank you. So roughly I've got cumulatively about 500 incidents over the last couple of years. That sound ballpark right Miss Perkins. 4 to 500.
>> I'll give you 480. Y
>> yeah, sounds good. Um have any of those been are any of those suspected or have any of those been confirmed to be um at the more serious end of the spectrum in terms of motivation, foreign interference, espionage, those kind of
issues. >> Senator, um you'll appreciate that we tend not to speak in detail to what we're analyzing um where it uh comes to um serious security events. I I can say we're working really closely on the motivations. Uh I I just also add to colleagues testimony that in that period as we've been developing the responses, we have of course worked very closely um with some of our security partners including the AFP and state police forces who at certain sites provide a response capability for us. >> So the AFP is a really important partner for us here. >> Sure. Uh but in terms of um the way that we uh analyze the incident reporting um we haven't um identified um uh particular high-end concerns but we are very concerned that this is a growing challenge and we're extremely alert to the international experience uh and that's why this this work is so important.
>> So of those four this be my last question because I know the chair wants to rotate the call. Of those 480 known incidents, can you tell me what proportion are unknown origin known to be stereotypical teenager doing something silly? Uh and any which have been identified to be foreign interference, espionage or something more serious.
>> I will take it on notice. I I my sense is I will struggle with that level of detail, but let me see what we can um analyze in the incident reporting database.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you,