Law Council sees cause for concern in broad immunity for ASIO officers

THE Law Council has called for changes in proposed security law amendments amid fears they may allow for “reckless behaviour”.

Stephen Keim SC, a member of the Law Council of Australia’s national human rights committee, is concerned ‘aggrieved parties may have their rights taken away’.

THE Law Council of Australia has called for changes to be made to proposed national security law amendments amid fears they may allow for the “reckless behaviour” of ASIO officers.

The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) aims to modernise the laws governing Australia’s primary intelligence agencies as well as clarifying the scope of the powers these agencies possess.

However, parts of the bill, notably section 35K, provide civil and criminal immunities for ASIO officers involved in special intelligence operations (SIOs), provided their conduct does not cause death or serious injury, or result in a sexual offence.

The Law Council is concerned intelligence agencies could be given too much protection from the normal law.

Stephen Keim SC, a member of the council’s national human rights committee, said: “What we are looking for is specificity as to what kind of conduct would prevent ASIO officers from being afforded … immunity.

“Aggrieved parties may have their rights taken away because the conduct that may be approved is so broad.”

The bill also extends immunities to parties other than intelligence officers who participate or assist in SIOs.

“Informants, civilians — you could have a member of the Sri Lankan intelligence agency with the same protections,” Mr Keim said.

The Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law is concerned that the scheme could lead to increased secrecy.

“There is a need, in the intelligence context, to maintain a strong accountability framework so as to ensure that corruption and abuses of power do not occur,” the centre says in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the proposed changes.

The Law Council and the centre have suggested an exposure draft be released and more time allowed to respond when further proposed changes to the legislation emerge.