September 30, 2022
Sarah Ison
The Australian
Friday 30 September 2022
Defence experts have raised concerns about the national anti-corruption commission becoming a “target” for foreign interference if sensitive information is gathered as part of its investigations.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior fellow Peter Jennings, who has held roles in the Defence Department, said it was almost inevitable for malicious actors to try to intercept or steal data gathered by the NACC.
“It’s a very standard approach by a hostile intelligence agency. They will go to a weaker link in the system,” he said.
Mr Jennings said there was an argument to be made over whether the NACC was needed at all, and particularly whether it should have oversight over Defence and other agencies.
“My question would be: Is this really needed compared to (the) range of powers in the national security world already? We have the inspector generals of intelligence and defence, there’s internal units inside defence … There’s enough. There seems a mania at the moment for granting more authorities,” he said.
Opposition members also confirmed they held “deep reservations” despite Liberal leader Peter Dutton declaring in-principle support for the NACC bill.
The NACC, under legislation introduced to parliament, will be able to tap the phones of the prime minister and cabinet ministers and search government departments, including Defence, without a warrant.
Opposition cyber security spokesman James Paterson said such information-gathering powers posed serious risks to national security, even if the data gleaned from searches and phone taps was never used.
“The NACC should avoid gathering classified or sensitive material unless it is absolutely essential as part of an investigation,” he told The Weekend Australian. “Storing this information will make the NACC an attractive collection target for foreign intelligence services … it must put in place the most robust policies to protect that information, including encryption, air-gapped systems disconnected from the internet and strict access controls.”
But a spokesman for Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said these concerns could be raised when the bill was reviewed by a parliamentary committee. He said the government took data protection seriously and the NACC was not the only federal government oversight body.
“The committee process is designed to make sure all concerns and views on the national anti-corruption commission are considered.”
Opposition legal affairs spokesman Julian Leeser also stressed the need for further checks and balances, suggesting the bar to make a hearing public be raised even higher.
“The exceptional circumstances clause is an important safeguard … but that shouldn’t be the end of the safeguards. Before it (NACC) holds a public hearing it should get a warrant from a superior court judge so those running an investigation are different to those determining if it should be public or not,” he said.
“There should also be time limits to an investigation, so a case doesn’t drag on for years and put people’s lives on hold.”
