A splash in The Australian makes waves at a sensitive national intelligence agency
A front-page scoop, Simon Benson, The Australian, February 7:
PHELPS BILL A SECURITY RISK: ASIO
Intelligence agencies are understood to have warned in a classified briefing to the government that the “third pillar” of the nation’s border-protection architecture — the offshore processing of asylum-seekers — would be dismantled if Kerryn Phelps’s medivac bill becomes law. The Australian understands that the briefing from the Department of Home Affairs, based on advice from ASIO and Australian Border Force, specifically referred to the threat to the “third pillar” of border control policy, which operates alongside boat turnbacks and temporary protection visas … The agencies argue that because the minister would have 24 hours to refuse an entry, ASIO would not have enough time to conduct a proper security threat assessment. “The amendments in the bill currently provide very limited timeframes for decisions on transfer to be made (within 24 hours), which seriously limits the ability to undertake security and background checks,” the briefing said.
A complaint, ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis, Senate estimates hearings, Monday:
Senator Kim Carr: Mr Lewis … you were saying how important it was to maintain public confidence in ASIO, particularly in this parliament, by which I took you to mean … bipartisan support, for the work of ASIO.
Mr Lewis: Yes …
Senator Carr: Would it be fair to say that throughout the history of ASIO that has not always been the case?
Mr Lewis: Sadly, a cursory read of our official history will show you some of the awkward times that we’ve had as an organisation, and I for one would never want to return to those times.
Senator Carr: … that’s why I understood you to be saying why you are so concerned about the report that appeared in The Australian identifying ASIO as the source of the material — a classified report — appearing on the front page of The Australian newspaper …
Mr Lewis: Yes … the advice that ASIO gave was not what was represented on the front page of The Australian … we have constrained ourselves to legal advice only. I’m sorry — there is also the issue of what was originally the 24-hour provision, which has now, I think, spun out to 72 hours. That is the challenge for an organisation such as mine, which habitually issues adverse security assessments (ASA) or qualified security assessments (QSA) on people …
The Senate homes in on that tight time limit for security vetting, a key issue in Benson’s exclusive report, estimates hearings, Monday:
Senator Jane Hume: From what you are telling me, Mr Lewis, sometimes the work that ASIO does to provide a QSA, or to provide an ASA, could potentially take months?
Mr Lewis: Sometimes it could, indeed.
Getting the context right, Home Affairs secretary Michael Pezzullo, estimates hearings, Monday:
In fairness to Mr Benson, the journalist, when one actually unpacked the article and read — some people I suppose only read the headline and some read the whole article — it said something like … that in advice from the Department of Home Affairs, based on contributions or advice from ASIO, and I think possibly the Australian Border Force might have been named as well, the government has been advised of the following factors: X, Y, Z. That was the Benson article. So, if you actually read down the column it would have become transparently apparent that the advice was from (Home Affairs), which drew on, in part, advice from ASIO.