Yahoo News Asio boss denies expanded powers could be used to target Black Lives Matter protesters
Australian intelligence chiefs have sought to allay fears Asio could use expanded compulsory questioning powers to target Black Lives Matter protesters.
Mike Burgess, the director general of security, also told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday he was offended by a “beyond the pale” suggestion that an aspect of the proposed powers was broader than the wording of Hong Kong’s new national security law.
A number of groups – including the Law Council – have raised concerns about a planned expansion of the types of issues for which people could be subjected to compulsory questioning by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Related: Australia's world-first anti-encryption law should be overhauled, independent monitor says
The bill introduced by the Australian government would allow questioning warrants – issued by the attorney general – to be used to gather intelligence related to politically motivated violence, rather than just about potential terrorism offences.
The government also plans to extend this power to cover espionage and acts of foreign interference, amid claims by Asio that there are more foreign spies and proxies operating in Australia now than at the height of the Cold War.
Dr Nicola McGarrity and Prof George Williams from the law faculty at the University of New South Wales have argued the definition of politically motivated violence went “well beyond” terrorism offences to include “acts or threats of violence or unlawful harm that are intended or likely to achieve a political objective”.
In a submission to parliament’s security committee, they said the definition of “terrorist act” contained an exception for advocacy, dissent and protest that was not likely to endanger the safety of the public or cause personal harm.
McGarrity and Williams said that exemption ensured “that people involved in the recent Black Lives Matter protests who engaged in property damage, such as the defacing of statues, cannot be prosecuted as terrorists (although they may be prosecuted under other criminal laws) and are not subject to the expanded powers given to law enforcement and intelligence agencies to investigate terrorism offences”.
When asked during a committee hearing whether Asio could use the new powers to shut down a Black Lives Matter protest, Burgess said: “No, absolutely not … Protests are lawful in this country and we stay away from them.”
He said this was the case even if protests shifted into property damage or defacing statues. He said Asio’s overarching legislation prevented the agency from limiting the right of a person to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent.
“We generally don’t look at protests, but if we have intelligence or information that says someone is wanting to encourage people to protest … if they have intent to promote acts of violence and unlawful harm at the higher end then that’s where we do get involved.”
Heather Cook, a deputy director general who appeared alongside Burgess at the inquiry hearing, elaborated on the types of protests that may attract Asio’s attention.
She cited the example of “an issue-motivated group which organises itself around committing acts of violence or destruction”.
“So if I were to think perhaps a little bit more historically, some of the anarchist groups or anti-globalisation groups … where it wasn’t simply opportunistic; they planned, they organised, they developed capability around undertaking acts of violence to support their particular issue – that would be somewhere where we would concern ourselves, but not the opportunistic scuffling that occurs between protest groups, or stickering or postering or graffitiing,” Cook said.
“Those would be police matters if they met those thresholds.”
Cook also indicated the previous restriction of the questioning power to terrorism offences had prevented use of that measure in recent years to quiz a “very significant number of individuals who were seeking to travel overseas” to join groups fighting in foreign conflicts.
“Equally when those individuals come back, if there’s not a link to a terrorism offence under Australian law, but we would wish to question them on their activities while overseas, and their contacts and associates, we would not be able to use a questioning warrant to do that under the current narrow definition,” Cook said.
Pauline Wright, the president of the Law Council of Australia, told the inquiry “that Australia is the only country in the Five Eyes alliance to confer a compulsory questioning power on one of its intelligence agencies for the purpose of collecting security intelligence, so there is a need to carefully scrutinise any proposal to expand those powers”.
Dr David Neal SC, also from the Law Council, said the definition of foreign interference – also covered by the expanded questioning power – included activities “otherwise detrimental to the interests of Australia”. He suggested anyone who may have relevant information about this could be questioned – potentially including journalists, academics, business operators and lawyers.
Neal said China’s national security legislation in relation to Hong Kong “confines itself not to things which are detrimental to the interests of China but confines itself to secession from China, or standard sorts of things about sedition”.
He said the breadth of what was covered by the proposed Australian law “really is extreme”. However, Neal added “a couple of words of caution” regarding the comparison, including that what was written into the text of the Hong Kong legislation may not mirror the realities of how it would be implemented.
Burgess, appearing at the committee later in the day, said he was offended by the “ridiculous” comparison with the Hong Kong law, which would reportedly allow people who damaged public transport to be charged with terrorism and jailed for life.
Drawing such parallels was offensive “to the men and women of my organisation, some of whom put their lives on the line to protect Australians from serious security threats”.
“To suggest that these bills are comparable, and in fact our bill is worse, is just beyond the pale,” Burgess said. “It’s completely, completely wrong.”
The inspector general of intelligence and security, Margaret Stone, said the plan to shift the role of approving questioning warrants to the attorney general “departs from the trend towards increased requirements for external authorisation in other Five Eyes jurisdictions”.
