Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 6:03:01 to 6:34:44
Discussion covers the timeline for Electronic Surveillance Act reforms and the department's knowledge of state-based firearm licensing failures.
Topics: Firearms, Law reform, National security
Speakers: Hon Bridget McKenzie, Stephanie Foster PSM, David Shoebridge, Hon Jonathon Duniam, Unknown Speaker, Alex Engel, Brian Hickey, Gavan Reynolds AO, Hamish Hansford, Hon Murray Watt, Jana Stewart, Paul Scarr
McKenzie. >> Thank you. Um just returning to my questions on firearms. Um, I just wanted
those four areas, um, how they actually ended up on the national cabinet agenda, the limits to the number of guns held by individuals, limiting open-ended firearm licensing, limiting the types of guns that are legal, and the Australian citizenship as a condition of holding a
Senator, I think we've said that um in collaboration with PMNC, there was a
>> I'm trying to work out who suggested what. I understand the collaboration and the paper's developed and it goes where it has to go and people do with it what they will. You said there's a policy. I I think what Mr. Hansford is saying is your last bracket of questioning. >> No worries. We'll go to PM and see. Um, at the uh 7:22 press conference on Monday the 15th of December, the New South Wales Police Commissioner uh told journalists of the attackers the older man was deceased and I'm told he had a gun license for approximately 10 years.
That information was false. And um the commissioner on Tuesday the 16th um corrected the record at a joint press
conference with the prime minister where he was able to correct the record that Sajjid Akram hadn't held a firearm license since 2015. uh that in fact he'd only held a firearm license for uh 2 years when the prime minister had the 2 p.m. announcement later that
you shouldn't be able to have a gun license for life kind of thing. Was the
prime minister aware when he made those remarks that Mr. Acrim had only ha held a license for 2 years or was the prime minister still under um the belief that in fact uh he'd held it for over a decade. >> We we don't know that information. Senator, >> it's clearly a question for prime
minister's estimates, not this portfolio. >> Okay. So my question is did home affairs
brief the prime minister about firearms license? >> No. Senator, wasn't a decade? It was only two years ago before. Did you know before the prime minister's 2:00 press conference that Mr. Ar only held a firearms license for two years, not a decade. >> Senator, from memory, we were following
the press as it was coming out. Um, but
for us to recall exactly at what time we
>> Well, on notice, M. Foster, I would like
the department to take uh to actually let this committee know when the department was informed Commissioner had got it wrong. and when the department informed PMNC or the prime minister's office or somebody uh in authority of that change.
>> So, Senator um as I said before, we were following this information in the media. Um we would not brief the uh anyone on information that was public that was not um our issue. So it was
>> If I could just finish, Senator. Sure. >> Um so the the license um is of course issued by New South Wales Police. It was
the New South Wales Police Commissioner who said something and corrected the
record. I can't imagine a circumstance in which we would think we need to brief that. It's public and it's not our responsibility. So I assume there is a um agencies across jurisdictions particularly at a time like this. So I would be very surprised if the New South Wales Police Commissioner knew this and the federal department or agencies didn't. But I will pursue that with the AFP later. Um,
I wanted to understand was the government's decision to end so-called open-ended firearms license
Akram held a license for approximately 10 years.
>> Senator, I don't know the answer. >> Mr. Hansford. >> Um I I think um we were aware of some jurisdictions having open-ended firearms licensing um independent from the particular situation that you're referring to. So I think that was a
known policy issue
>> and and has been part of our policy
deliberations. We'll just check if it then lines back to some of our consultations as well that I think we've taken on notice before >> because it would >> I would like to know when ending open-ended licensing arrangements became a formal policy position. >> And yes, Senator, I think we've taken that on notice in the bracket of
New South Wales Police Commissioner disclosed that there were two improvised
They were taken by our rescue and bomb disposal unit. They were found to be active devices. So they were taken back and rendered safe by our police who do a professional job. Is this an indication that if the attackers did not have firearms, they were equipped and planned these explosive devices? So, Senator, uh Um that's a question which uh is properly addressed to um either the federal police or to New South Wales
evidence that might be given to a
criminal proceeding. I will follow up with the AFP later on today. Um under the former coalition government through the AG's department, there are ongoing engagements and consultations with the firearm industry in order to progress forums were the firearm industry stakeholder and the gun safety industry stakeholder consultative forums in almost four years of the Albani government. Why has the government
stakeholder groups? government's decisions. So maybe >> yeah I I I don't think I have that answer so I can take it on notice for you. >> Yep. >> I'd ask you for the why. And Miss of the firearm industry stakeholder group? >> Uh Senator, I can answer that one. So,
um we've set this up after the import changes occur to work through how we're So, we're working closely with the industry on that. Prior to this time, there was not a um a formal working group. Um uh but my team does engage regularly with the major firearms importers about how the permit
their role at the border occurs. So it's not that we haven't been meeting with them. I just wouldn't describe it as a formalized working group. So since administration of the NFA transferred from AGs to home affairs, what firearm industry consultative forums formally, not informal conversations or um
conversations that you might have with the industry generally, what formal um consultative forums has home affairs established? So in terms of there's not I think it's probably already mentioned there's not
like a ministerial forum um that uh had currently existed. Um I know minister's commitment around that to do with the bill. The we did have uh forums and stakeholder engagement and we also do that alongside states and territories on the national firearms register. So that
couple of years. Um and then um the national firearms agreement itself hasn't been open I guess if you want to frame it that way um for discussion. So
>> um obviously the events and the national
it. So I guess we wouldn't have formalized discussions on the NFA per se
to time. We meet with other advocates and NOS's as well on firearms policy and NOS's that you meet with? >> on notice if you could. >> Yeah, I'll take that on notice mainly because some of the groupings that we meet with aren't comfortable necessarily identifying that they speak with us on firearms issues. >> Yeah, I do. And I think there's been eight separate meetings on firearms issues in this this year, this calendar year, including one held by the minister. Um I just want to clarify minister some of your evidence to Senator PCO's earlier questions. um when you said I guess he was asking questions um about the the gun buyback and on listening to your um responses are you saying that if all states and territories don't participate that it won't be a national um buyback scheme or is the Commonwealth
prepared prepared to partner with certain states depending on states um decisions to participate or not. >> I think what I said was that um we have yet to make that decision. Um but as the prime minister and others have said this buyback scheme will only be as strong as its weakest link and we would strongly encourage all states and territories to participate. Well, I think I think you know Queensland and the Northern Territory, other states have made it very clear that they're not participating. >> Yeah. And I'm very disappointed in that. >> Why? >> Because I think it's a good idea. >> Shouldn't you be putting resources to getting illegal guns off the streets rather than abiding firearm owners? >> I think it's a good idea to keep Queenslanders and Northern Territory
law-abiding firearm owners and the
firearms we all own and house safely and use to participate in sport, to hunt feral animals, um to represent our country, to enjoy our chosen sport on any given weekend are a risk to Australian safety. Is that your evidence here today? >> No, that's you putting words in my mouth. >> It is actually what he said. No, it's it's words you putting words >> buying guns from law-abiding firearm owners to keep Australians safe. >> It's you putting words in my mouth, which I know is something you like to
do. Um you know full well that the laws that we passed which primarily concerned
the importation of firearms exempted a range of people such as sporting shooters, farmers, pest controllers who you then went around telling that we
were going to restrict their abilities when we weren't. And similarly, there is nothing in a national buyback that
confiscates all guns from farmers, in the way that you like to pretend. I know that's your political agenda. >> Well, I think there's actually an argument for the How did you come up with the billion dollars, Miss Foster? You may be able to help the minister here. The billion dollars that is uh budgeted for the National Firearm Buyback Scheme. How did we uh come at I might need some assistance from Mr. Engel. >> Wanted to check Senator what you're referring to when you refer to that number like in terms of we're still in development with government about that. Depending on the national cabinet territories that will obviously affect the cost of the scheme depending on what if depending on what national cabinet agrees upon um and how many states and territories choose to do firearms reforms that will also affect >> I guess. So, no submissions been made to ERC about this. >> Um, Senator, we wouldn't comment on >> I'm not asking for the details. Has a submission to ERC been made? >> No, we you know, we wouldn't comment on that. >> I'm not asking for the details. Has a submission been made. Have you put forward a request to the treasurer for money? >> You know, we don't comment on that because it's a cabinet matter. This it goes to refusing to admit that you have national security committee meetings which is ridiculous. >> so no so no request has gone to fund no
request has gone to the treasurer to
fund the um buyback. You're waiting for national cabinet to come back. >> That's your conclusion. I'm not
commenting on that >> because you refused to comment on something so basic. Minister, I have other questions. So I'm happy to share the call. Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. >> Uh, thanks, Chair. Um, Secretary, at the end of June 2022, a member of Home Affairs, I think it was Deputy Secretary Ablong,
traveled to the United Kingdom and attended um a reception for the Defense and Security Media
Advisory Committee in the UK. Um, are you aware of this? >> No, I'm not, Senator Personally. It predates my time in the department. >> Well, who is um who would be able to answer questions about attendance by members of home affairs to the UK to discuss the defense and security media advisory committee in the UK.
>> So, senator, >> what year? >> 2022 from four years ago. Senator, if you ask the questions, >> it's not four years ago. It's three and a half years ago, but it's the 22nd of June, 2022. >> Senator, if you pose the questions, we'll see if there's an official who has the answers. >> All right.
Well, Deputy Secretary
Ablong attended and I think there's a um uh in the capacity I think as first secretary, National Security, Department of Home Affairs. So who who currently holds that position? Is that within your domain? Mr. Hansford, >> could you repeat the title?
Department of Home Affairs, like >> Senator, um, First Secretary would uh indicate that that was an officer who was uh in the London Post. >> Correct. Um, representing Home Affairs. >> So, >> I'll read the title again. I'm more than happy for you to see the FOI a copy of secretariat which identifies the title department of home affairs. So who would that I assume it would have reported to your part of the organization uh Mr. Hansford given you're the head of national security. So, so Senator um our
heads at any given time and at the moment the reporting line is through to the deputy secretary executive. >> All right. Well, do we have the deputy secretary executive in attendance? >> We do, Senator. Um what I'm not sure about um and I'll invite Mr. Tiki to to come to the table is whether or not that title will be the same now as it was in 2022. But we'll endeavor to answer your called first secretary national security
>> Well, my question isn't if you currently have first secretary national security
in London. My question is to whom would
the first secretary national security for the department of home affairs in London have been reporting to in June of 2022 and if whoever's representing that part of the department if they could come forward to answer some questions. >> So Senator we've had as I said a number of changes about the reporting lines. I don't know um and we'll have to take on notice. We'll see if we can find out where that position reported to in 2022. Mr. Hickey, do you currently have the equivalent of the first secretary,
National Security, Department of Home Affairs in London, reporting through to you? >> Uh, no, Senator. >> So, who does? >> So, so Senator, the um we have a a regional director in London. Um, and the home affairs staff in post report to her. >> All right. But London must report to
somebody in Australia. So who in Australia do they report to? >> London reports to Mr. Hickey at the moment. Senator, >> so Mr. Hickey, when you said no, did you mean you don't have a direct report? >> Correct. Senator, >> but they report through the chain to you. >> Yes, Senator. >> All right. Do you know how long that arrangement How long have you been in your current position? uh since uh mid November 2025. Senator, >> so Senator, Mr. Hickey is is acting in this role. arrangement has been in place where you are your acting deputy secretary in what >> Acting deputy secretary executive senator.
>> All right.
And is it the executive to whom the the foreign missions report to >> the regional directors? Um, Senator, so
those senior officials in our posts uh report directly to me. Yes, Senator. >> Yes. So the Yes, they report to you, but they report to you through the regional directors. >> Sorry. The >> that was Mr. Hickey's evidence. the regional directors report to him >> and the other staff in person when I asked to >> them the reg if the the missions report to you >> the answer is yes they do through the regional secretaries >> so I think the distinction Mr. >> Mr. Higgy >> senator if I can just explain the
is the mission implies the whole of the Australian mission. He is specifying that it's actually the senior home affairs person in the mission who reports to him. >> I'm only asking you about home affairs officials because I'm in home affairs senate estimates. So the home affairs officials in missions around the world report through
to you via regional representation model. Is that right, Mr. Higgy? Yes, Senator. >> All right. And do you know if that arrangement was in place in June of 2022? >> Uh, Senator, we're getting some answers to those questions. I'm not I don't have that information at hand. >> Well, um, have you been provided with a copy of the documents and the FOI? >> No, sorry. You hadn't asked the leadership, so I just >> Well, I thought I did. Sorry. That's okay. Yeah. You can get So just for clarification, the document >> won't be table because it's already publicly available, but distributing it so you know what senator should be just speaking to. >> Thank you. >> There are there's a compilation of three documents, but the only one I'm going to
be taking you to is the redacted email which at the bottom of which has a
little picture of Australia House and
the word Australia House. Do you see
that? >> Yes, we can, Senator. >> All right. Um, and this has this is an email from
the then first secretary of national security dated 28th of June 2022. Um, and it says
evening ex and I will attend the defense and security media advisory committee's overview of the DSMA is available here and there's a link and then it says this. As you may be aware, HA, which I'm assuming is home affairs, has been engaging with the DSMA Brigadage Jeffrey Dods over the past year to inform work in Australia to stand up a similar role. Um, uh, Secretary, did did you know that there's been this body of work in home affairs to stand up a similar role to the DSMA in the UK? Uh, no I didn't, Senator. That work was obviously taking place in the in the year before 2022.
the the the D defense and security media advisory um committee issues what are called dnotices in the UK and Dnotices are sens censorship censorship notices that prohibit media organizations or any
um at risk of criminal penalty um they're effectively
um government
um uh government silence notices. Um so, um
any ongoing connection between Home
Affairs and the Defense and Security Media Advisory Committee in the UK? >> No, I'm not aware, Senator. >> Um well, Secretary, I'll ask through you because Mr. Hickey may not be able to provide the answer on notice. What was um the engagement between Home Affairs and DSMA um leading up to and following the 28th Home Affairs been taking and what steps
similar role being a Dnotice role in Australia? Senator, I'll take the um question of the historical elements um on notice. I am unaware of any current work around Dotices. >> Minister, have the issue of Dnotices and your government wishing to get Dotices which are um censorship notices directed by the government to media and other outlets. Um are you aware of your government progressing this in any way? No, I'm not. >> Um, do you know if the minister's aware
that his department has been seeking to stand up a similar role to the de to the defense and security media advisory in the UK? >> Well, I'll take that on notice, but as Miss Foster has pointed out, that is from a number of years ago and I don't know whether that is was pursued or is
uh can you secretary provide um dates of all of the occasions in which staff um of home affairs met with the UK defense and security media advisory committee please? >> I'll take that on notice. Senator >> thank you. >> Thank you Senator Shoebridge. One
clarifying question from
Could I could I while we're clarifying
things, um I've just I've received some information since uh Senator McKenzie's last questions and Senator PCOX. I am informed that the National Firearms
Buyback can proceed if certain states
but obviously those states and territories would not receive any com financial support. >> Thank you. Thank you for clarifying.
Uh my clarifying question was just to
make absolutely sure that questions relating to the electronic surveillance bill should be asked in outcome two not of the national
security division. Is that right?
>> No. No. Outcome one. Senator, >> it is outcome one. >> Well, I will ask those questions if I
Yes. Okay.
I better read what they say now. Richardson review did have in it a recommendation relating to the replacement of the existing electronic surveillance accepted by the former government and there was a dedicated reform unit established and commitments made in 2022 with an exposure draft uh to be released by late 2022 and then final legislation in 2023. three,
what progress has been made on that legislation and where is it at right
now? So, Senator, um that legislative reform relates to 1,200 pages of legislation and since the Richardson review and response, the um department and the attorney general's department um depending on um where the function uh
sat has provided 10 submissions to the
government since September 2022, including 400 pages worth of policy
advice. There's been 14 meetings with ministers or their officers. Um most
31 October 25, 14 December, 25 and 31 January um 26. Sorry, that's advice um in those time frames. >> We have issued drafting instructions uh for the electronic surveillance reform most recently on the 28th of December. has been an ongoing discussion between
Council and the policy team. >> Right. So that work is underway. So where is the uh legislation that was
proposed to be released in 2023? >> Uh so this is the legislation that has been worked on for some years. is as I said it it does relate to 1,200 pages of quite um technical legislation and I've given you a sense about where we're up to in the process. Okay. So h has it been a uh consistent um effort on the way through as in the resourcing allocated to the undertaking
of this task from that point in time post the 2019 Richardson review to where we're at now. Has it been a dedicated unit that have been working on this with the same staffing levels all the way through? >> Uh there's been a team working on this with varying levels of expenditure which add up to over that um period of time
from 2021 22 right through to 25 26 to
about 11.3 million on expenditure in relation to that team. But we we might make sure that we can give you an answer um in relation to the the volume of staff effort over time and a picture about >> um what we've been doing. >> But looking Senator at the figures um it would appear that there was a fairly consistent staff effort over those
>> Thank you for that. Uh so when was the last stakeholder consultation on that? You've talked about meetings with ministers and a range of internal works. Was there any stakeholder consultation in relation to this? >> Well, we are working with stakeholders internal to government. Um, and so we are trying to formulate
>> I mean outside of government. Yes. >> Um, we we are very much focused on drafting a proposal and then the government will decide how they consult.
>> Okay. All right. So to that end um so no external consultation yet you'll wait till you have the draft laws and then consult the government will make a
instructions when do you expect an exposure draft to be released? >> Well we're we're working on the legislation center as I said it's very very complex given the volume. Um and
quickly as we reasonably can. Is there a projected time frame though a year this
year next year is or is it a matter for
government? I can >> Senator um as Mr. Mr. Hansford said there's been a very significant amount of work done to date um uh absent um any particular challenges or you know things that we haven't anticipated
um I would anticipate that we would be
um well progressed over the course of this year.
frame the government wishes to have this legislation out for an exposure draft at least out for consultation?
>> I I'm not aware of anything beyond what Miss Foster has already said.
>> Okay. Thank you. My my final question uh was in relation to the notes. Was any
legal advice taken, internal, external, uh, in making the decision to release
those handwritten notes in answer to the question on notice?
>> No, Senator, it was very clear to me
that when the Senate asks for something that I have, that that's my obligation to provide it.
>> If only everyone was. Yes. >> Spread the word, Secretary. >> More of that. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Before I go to Senator McKenzie
for uh what will hopefully be our final block of questions in this outcome uh indicating that to the officials in the room um I wish to advise that the committee is in a position to release the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission including the Australian Institute of Criminology. Thank you very