Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 4:05:34 to 4:28:47
The committee questions the department on the repatriation of Australians from Syrian camps and current Average Staffing Levels in national security divisions.
Topics: National security, Public service staffing
Speakers: David Shoebridge, Stephanie Foster PSM, Hon Jonathon Duniam, Brooke Hartigan, Hon Murray Watt, Ciara Spencer, Hamish Hansford, Jana Stewart, Tyron Whitten
the 67 personnel are they all employed include vacancies that exist within that financial year, >> right? And so what is budgeted capacity in terms of FTE or headcount or however you want to put it?
the 67 occupied?
>> Uh I would have to take that on notice different times. >> Yeah, sure. And Senator, a vacancy could someone else is acting in another role or it could be while we're seeking to fill. So, we'll try and get you some granularity around that answer. >> I suspect if there's an answer that doesn't say, well, there are 20 vacancies, which I assume there's not, then there'll be nothing to say here, the matter of ISIS brides please the group known as um has there been any change in position around uh the government's view on repatriation of this cohort of people post the events of Bondi?
at Bondi? >> Um I'll I'll leave it for the officials to answer that, but just to reinforce. So the government's position is that we are not providing assistance and not repatriating individuals in the Syrian IDB [clears throat] camps. So, and just confirming that position has not changed since Bondi the
>> Sure. And uh so was any advice sought? I think you were >> Yeah. >> passing to the officials. So, Senator, um there has been uh discussion about the cohort since December, but uh Minister Watt's answer is very clear to us as officials that the government's position on not repatriating
beyond the legislative obligations on a public servant. Um that has not been in question. >> Okay. So that is that uh the government obligations to fulfill here. So that then enables what I guess we call self-managed returns. If these individuals are able to get themselves from where they are to Australia, that is something that is allowed to happen. There's been no revision to that policy is what you're saying. >> So that is a um uh
a right of any Australian citizen. Um, as you may be aware, Senator, we have a fairly um robust system of managing uh what we call Australians of interest overseas um which Mr. Hansford can take you through um which contains a number of
provisions which allow us working in collaboration with colleagues um to manage the security implications of that uh of anyone who is categorized in that um in that definition. >> Sure. And just on that Australians of
interest system, has there been any change or review of that system
post the 14th of December last year? >> Uh no, Senator. >> So the same system remains.
Um >> it may it may be uh worth putting that question to AIO when they appear as well
because I'm guessing they would be more
actively involved in that than the department itself. >> So who runs that system? Yes. >> So it is run by the department. Um but
a lot of the operational input into that system comes from the federal police and
from AIO. Um and so there are a range of mechanisms by which we engage with them and with state and territory counterparts uh to um to respond to people who might return who are of or who might seek to return who are of interest to us. >> So but to be clear it is a system managed by the department of home affairs. Yes, there's oper operational
elements managed by intelligence agencies. Um, but home affairs is saying no revision, no changes to the system
>> to the overarching framework that we is making is that ACO or the AFP may well have considered their elements of that and how they would respond. I will certainly take up the minister's invitation to ask them a little later on
Um, can I ask then has there been any further discussions between the minister and the department or the minister and a third party or the department and a third party around assisting any further individuals out of this cohort beyond the six I gather it is that we have here now back to Australia or relating to the efforts of a third party to assist any of these individuals back to Australia. Just just to be clear, Senator, and again, I recognize uh you weren't a member of the
committee at uh earlier times, but um that group of six that returned to Australia was not the first group. >> Mhm. Um, in 2019, obviously former government repatriated two groups of unaccompanied Australian miners, eight minors from a IDP camp in Syria. In October 2022, this government their 13 Australian children. Um uh and
six who were not repatriated and
>> Yes. >> So I just wanted to be clear about the >> No. Aware of the history. Yes. And
>> um obviously there's a distinction between a minor and an adult a consenting >> and also a distinction between an organized repatriation [clears throat] and merely fulfilling legal obligations and then leaving it to the people concerned
distinction which is why I asked about any discussions between third parties that may or may not be assisting. So if I can go back to that question, has there been any of those discussions between the minister and any third party, the department and any third party in relation to any further self-managed returns of anyone from that cohort? >> So Senator, if if I'm understanding the intent of your question, have we had any discuss have we the department obviously I won't answer for the minister. Um, have we had any discussions with third party about providing assistance to this
>> Uh, and any discussion about this cohort with a third party? Not necessarily about providing assistance because as the ministers and yourself have both said, it's not about providing assistance, but about the return of
anyone from this cohort. So, Senator, um
I make a distinction between third party being, as I think you're intending it, someone outside governmentdeed. >> The answer is unquestionably no. >> But of course, the system I described before about ensuring that we um respond to people who might wish to come back to Australia. That involves discussions within government. >> Within government. Yes. Yes. but not
parties. >> Example, um the development of a plan with AFP and AIO input should um Mr. Hansford choose to return to Australia as a person of interest to make sure that um appropriate um safeguards are in place to protect community safety. So that's the nature of the discussion internal to government and I think that is a function that's quite distinct from the question you're asking me. I'll be talking to third parties about their return. No. >> that escalated quickly. Mr. H. >> It's um I'd just like to clarify that's a hypothetical.
secretary referring to you're on our watch list or interest list. >> Thank you Senator Denny. Senator She thank thank you chair. Um I I didn't hear Senator PCO's questions on firearms. Did they cover the firearms
registry? >> I didn't think they did. >> It was more about compensation. >> Well, um I have some questions about the National Firearms Registry. I think that was transferred from AG's to Home Affairs uh as a result of the changes in June.
Um now when I asked um the attorney generals about progress on the firearms registry in February last year, they said that they they had a 4-year time frame to implement it. Um and um that uh they weren't expecting it to be
up and running until years into the future. when I challenge them about how that could possibly be the case um given the relatively limited scope of a national firearms registry. It's sure it's got some data challenges, but it's it's um um I asked how they could do that and then they told me that it was to quote attorney general's incredibly
place years into the future. Um I note that the commitment has been made by the government to have it up and running I think by the end of this year. Um and um I support that commitment. It's a good commitment. But given what we heard from the attorney general's just in February of last year, can you explain to me what's changed, what the resources is,
to be in place by the end of this year.
So, Senator, um Mr. Hans' be very happy
to run you through um exactly how we're going about expediting that process. Um but to support colleagues from attorney general's department, um it is an extremely significant undertaking um
bringing together um what has been done
often in a manual way, state by state into a national register. What we are seeking to do is to take a staged approach to to getting this functional as quickly as we can. That's right. And um just to clarify, Senator, we have the policy of responsibility for the
National Firearms Register and it's being implemented by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. So
later today, but it is fair to say that um the Minister for Home Affairs um asked that the um National Firearms Register, the Commonwealth Elements be
expedited. This was then subject to um a discussion and agreement at PL police ministers council in October last year and the key comwalth elements of the national firearms register u are being complete that this calendar year and they again can speak to their um progress in relation to that. Um there is substantial fund funding that has to states and territories to enable them to then connect into the national firearms register. Each state and territory is at various stages of their
maturity if you like in terms of whether or not they have a digital system or a paperbased system. And so they're they're then working through um following the agreement from police ministers in October how they might well expedite each of their different elements. >> So what's home affairs role? Um if the ACIC's job is is it their job to
operationalize it to hold the database and make it actually work? >> That's correct, Senator. >> Um what is your what is your role?
>> So we have two roles. one is our policy role um to provide uh advice to the then we also have an operational role that Mr. Engel manages in relation to um permitting of firearms and different um systems. So there's two two different elements. >> All right. What's the permitting and permitting role? >> Yes, >> permitting. permitting. What is the role in issuing permits that home affairs has? >> Yeah. So, uh we're predominantly a policy branch, but we do have an element which is firearms import applications. So, the Commonwealth does and so we have a system for that. So, we the broad
agreement at national cabinet all that time ago and then we have a very direct role with our own specific system too. >> All right. So your import export um the um um uh can I can I ask you is is is the goal then just to sort of speak in practical terms is is what the Commonwealth has committed to do is to have a
piece of software or maybe multiple is needed to go with that and common agreed parameters for data sets. and have that up and running by the end of this year. Um um and then hopefully states and territories will be picking up their databases and implementing them into that. But what the Commonwealth is committing to is that central >> That's broadly correct, Senator. Um but I would note that um police ministers at the police ministers council also agreed to expedite the state and territory input to that central system. Um, yeah, I I understand Home Affairs can't force the
New South Wales Police Force to to move their data and that requires that political will, collective political governments around the country to make
understanding by the end of this year
committed to having that core architecture
in place including does that include agreed defined terms and and data points. So as we have common data for firearms and firearm registry information around the country.
>> Yes. So we already have agreement from
the states and territories to national data standards. So that's some of the work that we've been doing. Um and then there's also a range of um I guess you would call them from the Commonwalth level because we don't own a lot of this legislation. Um some operational policy agreement as well because states and territories may have to uh some may just need to change business processes. Some may need to make minor tweaks to legislation um data to sit on a commonwealth database. >> Yeah. And it might be and even the near before at previous which is um the information in there we want it much quicker than maybe potentially paperbased that we have at the moment. So some states might require a dealer
for example to >> input that information into a portal to their state registry in a quicker time frame and then that feeds into the NFR. That's just one example of a operational >> Yeah. and the the database will have to allow for some heterogeneity at at that
point in terms of data entry. >> Yeah. So the concept would be and ACRC can talk to more of this would be that the state registries are feeding information into that central architecture.
>> Who is responsible for the arm twisting negotiations however you want to ensure they're they live up to the end of the bar bargain. So that collaboration is led by the Minister for >> All right. Where are we up to in terms of commitments from state and territories in terms of timeliness of getting their data onto the national database? And it might be useful to go through the different jurisdictions because there's different levels of political support and resistance across the country. So, Senator, as I said earlier, um at the police ministers council, um all
police ministers agreed to expedite their process. How that is playing out operationally? Um uh Mr. Engel might be able to give us some idea, but I don't think we have a schedule that says, you know, Tazzy by here, WA by there, because we are still working through with them um what they can do. Well, if we can, so far as you you can shed light on state by state, territory by territory. Mr. Eagle, where are we up to nationally? >> Yeah. So, I'd say ACIC will be able to better shed light because they're managing the overall project governance say that from the end of 2026, we expect um more mature states. For example, New South Wales um they can on board fairly quickly. But the ones that are moving from paperbased systems um they're the
ones that um we're dealing with. But we don't have I wouldn't say we'd have an exact adoption date for each state and territory yet. That continues to be the work of the ACIC with them.
>> So what are the more mature states in terms of their their data sets for um firearms? You say New South Wales which has an online database. What other states? >> Yeah. So I can run through I just put a
ACI better to make judgments on these the stages of these registries but just in a a broad sense. >> Yes. um uh it's likely that New South Wales uh South Australia WA um are probably slightly further ahead but I'd just aster that with with ACIC but then uh we know that other jurisdictions have to build a registry from um from the beginning or replace paper base so that
would be ACT uh particularly potentially partly paper partly digital Tasmania uh Northern Territory uh and I'd also just add that running alongside the NFR we required um them to upgrade and improve
the same time, states and territories, some of their registries might have been getting to end of life. So there was a broader conversation that they were having about replacement. So related to the NFR, but more broadly, they might be involved in procurement practices that might be beyond what they need for the
NFR as well. So those two things interact >> and the one state you have mentioned in that is Queensland. >> Judge probably exactly where they're up to. I'm going to rotate the call. >> But Senator, I would say at the police minister's council, there was broad support and agreement to expedite. So, >> thank you, Senator Schubert. Senator Duniam. Um I might just ask a question not in the sequence I was asking before but uh
given there's a short period of time here. There was a report in the nightly
that a senior home affairs official who is currently serving as the department's deputy counterterrorism coordinator has been appointed to the prime minister's new national security adviser. Is that the case? Uh so um one of our first assistant secretaries um has just been appointed um as uh PM's national security adviser. >> Yes. So has that individual taken up this role in the prime minister's office or not yet? >> Uh we're in a period of handover transition senator.
being left vacant by this individual um
what's the process for because that's quite a significant role deputy counterterrorism coordinator.
>> It also is the head of our
coordination center. Um >> Mr. Hansford and I have identified the officer who we are transferring in. It's an officer who's already at level. Um, >> we are, I think, yet to issue the staff notice that I cleared this morning. Okay. >> Um, but that is imminent. Um, in light of exactly what you said, Senator, we were not going to leave that position
vacant.
individual vacates, there'll be someone to back fill in and we'll be as safe as we were yesterday. >> You bet. >> Excellent. Okay. That's good news. and the readers of the nightly will be happy that their article's been confirmed. So, congratulations to the individual who's moving to the PMO. Um, I just wanted to go back and I may not have much time. The questions we were asking before about meetings with third parties and I may have misheard or misunderstood what you said, but you said categorically that there were not meetings with third parties. the department did not meet with third parties with regard to the return assisted or otherwise of this cohort of people. >> So, so Senator, my memory is your question was framed in the context of post Bondi. Um, so clearly on record is meetings and that there was a departmental official at each of those. >> Yes. And so no meetings since then though. >> Okay. All right. And uh I will probably when we come back continue my line of questioning on that issue. >> Certainly. >> Thank you, Senator Dunn. We are um a couple minutes before lunch. Thought we might head there early, but before we do
Transaction Reports and Analysis Center know that we are in a position to release you. So, thank you very much for your time. Uh we will return at 2:30 with outcome one.