The exception is : javax.servlet.jsp.JspException: Error occured while sorting the list of results
There is an exception: Error occured while sorting the list of results
This research paper represents a collaborative effort between researchers in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, all of whom work in research organisations supporting their respective national Parliaments.
The project was led by Cat Barker (Parliamentary Library, Australia). The other contributors were Claire Petrie (Parliamentary Library, Australia), Holly Porteous (Library of Parliament, Canada), Pleasance Purser (Parliamentary Library, New Zealand), and Joanna Dawson and Samantha Godec (House of Commons Library, United Kingdom).
The Congressional Research Service's (CRS, United States) publication policies precluded it from participating at this time.1 Information on US arrangements has been included in the comparative section of this paper on the basis of research conducted by Cat Barker and Samantha Godec.
The size and powers of Western national security and intelligence agencies have increased significantly since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Information revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013 and further reforms to intelligence agency powers, including those aimed at dealing more effectively with threats associated with the Islamic State group and ‘foreign fighters', have ensured that the accountability framework that applies to those agencies is of continuing interest.
The intelligence communities and associated oversight frameworks in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States have each evolved to meet the particular needs of those countries and the specific contexts in which they operate. However, as Western democratic nations facing similar challenges in balancing the imperative of accountability with the need for intelligence agencies to operate with a degree of secrecy, and that share a close intelligence sharing and co-operation relationship under the Five Eyes arrangements, these countries serve as relevant and useful comparators to one another.2 The independent oversight bodies in the five countries agreed in September 2016 to establish the Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council ‘to facilitate the sharing of experiences and best practice in oversight and review' that will meet annually in person and quarterly by secure electronic communication.3
This Research Paper first provides information on the intelligence communities, key mechanisms for oversight of the intelligence community and any recent changes to, or reviews of, the oversight frameworks in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK by country. This is followed by comparative analysis that highlights some of the similarities and differences between those countries (including the US) in the arrangements that exist for intelligence oversight.
In each country, there is some combination of parliamentary/congressional, independent and judicial oversight in place, in addition to accountability through the executive branch. However, there are differences in the nature and scope of each of those components. Examples include the extent to which parliamentary or congressional committees can access classified material, and to which they may examine the operations (as distinct from administration, expenses and policies) of the intelligence agencies; and whether independent oversight is primarily centralised or distributed. In all but the US, significant reviews of, or reforms to, intelligence oversight arrangements have been undertaken in the previous five years, and further specific reforms are currently under consideration in Australia and Canada. It is hoped that by drawing out some of the similarities and differences between these systems, this paper will support parliamentarians in each of the countries covered in their consideration of current arrangements and any potential reforms.
The information on each country's intelligence oversight framework is focused mainly on the key mechanisms in place in the parliamentary/congressional, independent and judicial spheres. Less detail is included on broader systems of executive oversight and other accountability mechanisms such as auditors-general, whose jurisdiction may include, but is not specifically focused on, intelligence agencies.
The agencies considered ‘in-scope' for each country are those that are defined or considered by that country to comprise its intelligence community at the time of publication. The oversight arrangements described are, except where otherwise noted, those in place at the time of publication. Reforms being considered at the time of publication are covered in the sections on recent developments and reform proposals in each of the country sections.
The Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) comprises the six agencies outlined below. The AIC is part of the broader national security community that includes law enforcement, border protection and policy agencies.4
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) is Australia's national security intelligence agency. Its role is to identify, investigate, and provide advice on threats to security and it is responsible to the Attorney-General.5
The Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) is Australia's overseas secret intelligence collection agency. Its main functions are to collect and distribute across the Australian Government foreign intelligence that may impact on Australia's interests, carrying out counter-intelligence activities and liaising with overseas intelligence and security agencies. ASIS is responsible to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.6
The Office of National Assessments (ONA) is responsible for analysing and providing advice on information (including open source) relating to international matters of political, strategic or economic interest to Australia. It also plays a role in coordinating and evaluating Australia's foreign intelligence activities. ONA is responsible to the Prime Minister.7
There are three intelligence agencies within the Department of Defence, two of which have responsibilities beyond that portfolio. The Australian Signals Directorate (ASD; formerly known as the Defence Signals Directorate, or DSD) collects and analyses foreign signals intelligence and provides information and communications security advice and services to the Australian Government.8 The Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation's (AGO) main role is to collect and analyse geospatial and imagery intelligence for the purposes of informing the Government about the capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia, supporting Australian Defence Force (ADF) activities and supporting the national security functions of Commonwealth and state authorities.9 The Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) assesses and analyses intelligence on countries and foreign organisations to support ADF operations, capability and policy development, and broader decision-making on defence and national security issues.10
Two Royal Commissions led by Justice Robert Marsden Hope in the 1970s and 1980s, and further major reviews in the 1990s and early 2000s have played a significant role in shaping Australia's framework for oversight of its intelligence agencies.11 While the AIC has grown and evolved significantly in the intervening period, the key oversight mechanisms have remained largely unchanged.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) perform complementary roles. The Committee oversees the administration and expenditure of the intelligence agencies, while the Inspector-General reviews their operational activities. These standing mechanisms are supplemented by external reviews of the intelligence agencies, with the most recent completed in June 2017.12 Changes to oversight arrangements recommended by the most recent review are outlined below in the section titled ‘Recent developments and reform proposals'.
Judicial oversight of intelligence activities is limited, with the courts having little involvement in the issuing or monitoring of warrants. The only specialised tribunal is the Security Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which conducts merits review of most categories of adverse security assessments issued by ASIO.13
The budgets of ASIO, ASIS and ONA are published in annual Portfolio Budget Statements, and the agencies can be held to account at related hearings of Senate committees (see below under ‘Senate Standing Committees'; ASIO is the only agency to routinely appear at those hearings).14 However, additional funding for ASIO and ASIS provided in the 2017–18 Budget was not included in the totals set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements, and it is unclear whether other amounts might have also been excluded.15
ASIO is the only agency which produces a publicly available annual report, which is then also tabled in Parliament. A classified version of ASIO's annual report is provided to the Attorney-General, who must share it with the Leader of the Opposition.16 All AIC agencies are subject to financial and administrative audits by the Australian National Audit Office.17
The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) does not oversee the agencies themselves, but has a related function of reviewing the operation, effectiveness and implications of counter-terrorism and national security legislation, including ASIO's special powers relating to terrorism.18
The PJCIS was first established in 1988 as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.19 ASIS was brought under the Committee's remit in 2002, implementing a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (Samuels Inquiry) that reported in 1995.20 ASD was added at the same time.21 The PJCIS has overseen all six AIC agencies since 2005, when its mandate was extended to include ONA, DIO and AGO in response to a recommendation of the 2004 Report of the Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies (the Flood Review).22
The PJCIS is established under Part 4 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (IS Act), with additional detail set out in Schedule 1 to the Act. Section 29 sets out what the PJCIS's functions are, and just as importantly, what they are not. With respect to oversight of the AIC, the PJCIS's functions are (subject to the limitations set out below) to:23
The PJCIS is specifically precluded from reviewing:
The PJCIS conducts annual reviews of the administration and expenditure of the AIC agencies. These reviews are based on information provided by the AIC agencies, the IGIS and the Auditor-General in submissions (most of which are classified) and at closed hearings.27 The reports on these reviews are tabled in each House of Parliament and published on the PJCIS's website. They include commentary from the PJCIS on relevant matters, and sometimes specific recommendations to government. For example, in its report for 2011–13, the PJCIS recommended that the Government review the continued application of the efficiency dividend and other savings measures to AIC agencies, and that it consider the reforms necessary to equip the AIC to meet the challenges posed by technological changes.28
The PJCIS does not have the power to initiate its own inquiries into matters relating to the activities of an AIC agency. However, it may, by resolution, request that the responsible minister refer such a matter (though ministers may decline such requests).29 As noted above, matters may also be referred by a House of Parliament. In practice, most inquiries conducted by the PJCIS or its predecessors into matters relating to the activities of an AIC agency were initiated by a referral from the minister, and almost all have concerned potential or proposed reforms to legislation.30 A notable exception on both counts was the referral to the PJC on ASIO, ASIS and DSD of an inquiry into intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction by the Senate in June 2003, one of only three inquiries referred by a House of Parliament to the PJCIS or a predecessor committee.31 There appear to have been only two instances of a minister referring a matter at the request of the PJCIS or a predecessor committee—the first in February 2000, on the nature, scope and appropriateness of ASIO's public reporting, and the second in March 2015, on the authorisation of access to telecommunications data to identify a journalist's source.32
The IS Act grants powers to the PJCIS to support its functions. The PJCIS may request a briefing from the head of an AIC agency or from the IGIS.33 It may also require a person to appear before it and give evidence or produce documents if it has reasonable grounds to believe the person is capable of giving the information or documents sought, though there are some constraints on this power.34 The PJCIS cannot use that power on the IGIS or any of the IGIS's staff.35 For AIC agencies, the power may only be used on the heads of agencies (though an agency head may nominate a staff member).36 In line with limits on its functions, the PJCIS must not require anyone to disclose to it any information that is operationally sensitive, or that might prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of its foreign relations.37 A minister responsible for an AIC agency may issue a certificate to the PJCIS to prevent a person from disclosing operationally sensitive information where a person is about to produce a document or is giving, or about to give, evidence.38
The PJCIS has the power to take evidence on oath or affirmation and, subject to limitations around sensitive information, to disclose or publish evidence and the contents of documents that it receives.39 It may only conduct a review in public with the approval of the ministers responsible for the AIC agencies.40
The PJCIS's reports on its reviews and inquiries are tabled in Parliament and are publicly available online, as are the annual reports on its own activities that it is required to make under the IS Act.41
The PJCIS is required to comprise five senators and six members of the House of Representatives. It must also have a majority of government members and be chaired by a government member. Members of the PJCIS are appointed by a resolution of each House of Parliament, following nomination by the Prime Minister (for the House of Representatives) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (for the Senate). Nominations are to be made following consultation with each recognised non-government party represented in each House of Parliament, and with regard to ‘the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the Committee reflects the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament'. Ministers, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are not eligible to be appointed to the PJCIS. The PJCIS is re-established following the commencement of each new Parliament, and appointments are generally for the term of the Parliament.42
The PJCIS and its predecessors have generally comprised six government and five Opposition members, but has not included members from the crossbench.43 This has attracted criticism from crossbench parliamentarians.44
The PJCIS is supported by a secretariat provided by the Department of the House of Representatives. The secretariat has two dedicated research staff. The research staff are responsible to a Committee Secretary and are supported by an administrative staff member, both of whom work across the PJCIS and another committee. Additional research staff are allocated across committees supported by the Department of the House of Representatives according to the needs of those committees at any given time. Under a standing agreement reached with the Government in 2015, the PJCIS also seconds technical advisors to its secretariat as needed from the Attorney-General's Department and other agencies, including ASIO. The IS Act requires all staff supporting the PJCIS to be security-cleared to the same level and at the same frequency as staff of ASIS (Positive Vetting, which is the highest level).45
The Legislation Committee of each Senate Standing Committee examines the estimates of proposed and additional expenditure for public service departments and other Commonwealth agencies, generally three times per year. The committees hold public hearings at which they have the opportunity to question ministers (or their representatives in the Senate) and government officials about the administration of government.46
These hearings provide an additional means of imposing financial accountability, though in practice the extent to which AIC agencies are subject to scrutiny through the Senate Estimates process varies. ASIO is the only AIC agency to routinely appear at Senate Estimates hearings in its own right.47 Questions relating to the other AIC agencies tend to be addressed to the lead portfolio departments.48 The IGIS also appears at Senate Estimates.49
The office of the IGIS was recommended by the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies in 1984.50 The Commissioner considered there would be merit in an independent oversight body to provide the public with greater assurance that the activities of the AIC agencies are proper, and ‘to clear [agencies] or bring [them] to task, as the case may be, if allegations of improper conduct are made'.51 The IGIS was established by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (IGIS Act) and commenced operation in February 1987.52
The IGIS is an independent statutory office-holder appointed by the Governor-General. Broadly, the IGIS's role is ‘to ensure that the agencies act legally and with propriety, comply with ministerial guidelines and directives and respect human rights'.53
The IGIS has several main functions: AIC agency inquiry functions, intelligence and security matter inquiry functions, AIC agency inspection functions, and public interest disclosure functions.54
The IGIS's AIC agency inquiry functions differ somewhat across the six AIC agencies, and are broadest in relation to ASIO.55 The IGIS may inquire into the compliance by AIC agencies with Australian laws and any guidelines or directions given by the responsible minister; the propriety of the agencies' activities; any act or practice of an agency that may be inconsistent with or contrary to human rights law; and the procedures of the agencies relating to the redress of grievances of their employees.56 Whether an inquiry may be initiated at the request of the responsible minister, of the IGIS's own motion, and/or in response to a complaint, differs somewhat across matters and agencies. In most instances, the IGIS may initiate an inquiry at least at the request of the responsible minister, or of the IGIS's own motion.57 The IGIS requires ministerial approval to inquire into a matter relating to a Commonwealth agency that occurred outside Australia or before commencement of the IGIS Act.58
The Prime Minister may request that the IGIS inquires into a matter relating to an AIC agency, or an intelligence or security matter relating to any Commonwealth agency, and the IGIS must generally comply with such a request.59 The IGIS may not, of its own motion, inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to a non-AIC agency.
The IGIS may conduct inspections of AIC agency records as the IGIS considers appropriate, to ensure agencies are acting legally, with propriety and in accordance with human rights.60 The IGIS indicates that its inspections enable it to ‘identify issues or concerns before they develop into systemic problems that could require major remedial action'.61 The IGIS's inspection activities include reviewing records relating to ASIO's use of special powers, including supporting materials accompanying warrant applications; reviewing ministerial authorisations issued to ASIS, AGO and ASD; reviewing ASIS operational files and its application of weapons guidelines; and monitoring agency compliance with relevant legislation.62
The IGIS is also responsible for overseeing AIC agency handling of public interest disclosure matters and investigating such matters where they relate to AIC agencies.63
The IGIS has significant powers, broadly comparable to a Royal Commission, to support the performance of its inquiry functions, including powers to obtain information and documents, take evidence and enter Commonwealth agency premises.64 Due to the sensitive nature of the matters and activities into which the IGIS may inquire, inquiries are required to be conducted in private.65
The IGIS must produce reports on its inquiries and provide them to the relevant agency heads (unless the matter concerns an agency head) and the responsible ministers.66 Summaries of inquiries are generally included in the IGIS's annual reports, and unclassified versions of inquiry reports are sometimes published on the IGIS's website.67 The current IGIS and former holders of the office have recognised the importance of making public as much of the IGIS's work as possible within security constraints.68
If an agency head has taken, or proposes to take, action in response to conclusions or recommendations in an IGIS inquiry report, he or she must provide details of any such action to the IGIS. If the IGIS does not consider that adequate and appropriate action has been taken in a reasonable period, the IGIS may prepare a report on the matter for the responsible minister or the Secretary of the Department of Defence.69
The IGIS has full access to information and records held by the AIC agencies for the purpose of fulfilling its inspection functions.70 The responsible minister must provide the IGIS with copies of any guidelines or directions issued to ASIO, ASIS, AGO and ASD as soon as practicable.71 AIC agencies must provide the IGIS with copies of reports given to a responsible minister or the Secretary of the Department of Defence if requested to do so by the IGIS.72 AIC agencies must also notify the IGIS of the authorisation of and use of particular powers. For example, copies of emergency warrants or authorisations made by agency heads (in place of a minister) must be provided, and ASIO must notify the IGIS of any use of force against a person during the execution of a warrant, the authorisation of a ‘special intelligence operation', and matters relating to its special terrorism powers.73
In 2006, the IGIS noted that 60 to 70 per cent of its resources were devoted to proactive inspection activities and 30 to 40 per cent to inquiry work.74 More recent data on the proportional distribution of resources does not appear to have been made public.
The IGIS is appointed by the Governor-General, and may be appointed on a full or part-time basis.75 The Prime Minister is required to consult with the Leader of the Opposition before recommending an appointee to the Governor-General.76 The IGIS may be appointed for a period of up to five years, and may be re-appointed no more than twice.77 If a person was appointed to the office of IGIS as a Judge and ceases to be a Judge, the Governor-General may terminate the person's appointment.78 Otherwise, the Governor-General may terminate the IGIS's appointment by reason of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.79
As at 30 June 2017, the IGIS was supported by 15 ongoing public service employees (including an Assistant IGIS), four of whom worked part-time.80 The IGIS's budgeted expenses for 2017–18 amount to AUD3.32 million.81 Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine the staffing and resources of the IGIS as a proportion of those of the AIC agencies because that information is not made available for the three defence intelligence agencies.
While the IGIS's key functions have remained the same in recent years, the powers of the AIC agencies, most notably ASIO, have expanded in that time. So, while the nature of the IGIS's oversight role has not changed, the breadth of powers it now oversees (and in the current security environment, possibly the increased use of some powers82) has placed additional resourcing pressures on the agency. However, the IGIS noted in its Annual Report 2015–16 that it had received additional funding as part of the package in the 2014–15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, and had been exempted from the efficiency dividend from 2015–16 onwards.83 It also stated that this was allowing additional staff to be recruited ‘to enable the office to continue to provide a comprehensive and effective oversight program'.84
Judicial oversight of, or involvement with, the authorisation of AIC agency powers is limited. Ministerial authorisation is required for certain activities of ASIS, AGO and ASD, and subject to the exception noted below, warrants for ASIO's exercise of powers are issued by the Attorney-General.85
ASIO has access to special powers in relation to terrorism offences, under which it may obtain a warrant either to question a person without detention for a maximum of 24 hours (Questioning Warrants), or to detain a person for questioning for a maximum of seven continuous days (Questioning and Detention Warrants).86 To apply for such a warrant, the Director-General of ASIO must obtain the consent of the Attorney-General, and then apply to an ‘issuing authority' for the warrant's issue.87 An issuing authority is a current federal magistrate or judge of a federal, state or territory court who has been appointed by the Attorney-General, though there is the capacity for the Attorney-General to declare persons in a specified class to be issuing authorities regardless of their position or expertise.88 Once the warrant is granted, the person is brought before a ‘prescribed authority'—usually a former judge of a state or territory District or Supreme Court—who oversees and supervises exercises of power under the warrant.89
Importantly, a judge appointed as an issuing authority or prescribed authority is acting in a personal, not judicial, capacity.90 Furthermore, the role played by both is limited. To issue a warrant, an issuing authority need only be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing it will substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence.91 He or she does not have to consider whether there may be other effective methods for collecting the evidence, or, in the case of a Questioning and Detention Warrant, whether detention is necessary—these are matters considered by the Attorney-General in consenting to the warrant request.92 A judge acting as a prescribed authority can supervise and steer the questioning process, but these powers are also restricted—for example, a prescribed authority cannot generally make a direction inconsistent with the terms of a warrant.93
Decisions made in relation to special terrorism powers warrants are not subject to merits review, and the ASIO Act expressly excludes the jurisdiction of state and territory courts while the warrant is in force.94 Decisions under the ASIO Act, the IS Act and other intelligence legislation are also excluded from the statutory judicial review framework set out in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.95 However, a person may apply to the Federal Court of Australia or High Court of Australia for judicial review of actions by officers of the Commonwealth to ensure these actions are carried out within their statutory and constitutional limits.96
The only specialised tribunal providing oversight in relation to intelligence matters is the Security Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which conducts merits review of most categories of adverse security assessments made by ASIO.97 Hearings in this division are conducted in private, and the Attorney-General may issue a public interest certificate to require sensitive national security information to be withheld from the applicant.98 Judicial review of the process of ASIO making a security assessment is also available through the Federal Court and High Court.99
Staff members and agents of ASIS, ASD and AGO have immunity from civil and criminal liability for activities carried out by the agencies in the proper performance of their functions, which might otherwise be prohibited by the unintended consequences of certain Australian laws.100 This immunity can only be overridden by other Commonwealth, state or territory laws if those laws explicitly provide otherwise.101 Similarly, ASIO officers participating in a ‘special intelligence operation' (SIO) are not subject to civil or criminal liability in relation to conduct engaged in during the course of, and for the purposes of, the SIO, and in accordance with the SIO authority. There are exceptions to this immunity for conduct which causes death or serious injury; constitutes torture; involves the commission of a sexual offence; or in which the participant induces another person to commit an offence that the other person would not have intended to commit.102
Australian courts have prosecuted intelligence officers, and other persons who have been entrusted with intelligence information, for unauthorised disclosures of such information.103
The courts have previously ruled as inadmissible intelligence sought to be admitted in evidence in criminal prosecutions, due to impropriety in the process of obtaining the intelligence. An example is the matter of R v Ul-Haque [2007] NSWSC 1251, in which evidence of admissions made by the defendant in a counter-terrorism prosecution to ASIO and Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers was excluded by the NSW Supreme Court under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (which provides for the exclusion of improperly or illegally obtained evidence) and section 84 (which excludes evidence of admissions that were influenced by ‘violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct').104 In finding the evidence inadmissible, the trial judge was highly critical of the conduct of ASIO officers in the case, finding them to have ‘assumed unlawful powers of direction, control and detention'.105 The proceedings were subsequently discontinued.106
The functions of the PJCIS and the IGIS are complementary rather than overlapping, and the PJCIS is prohibited from seeking ‘operationally sensitive information', meaning the scope for cooperation between the two is fairly limited. However, some information is shared between them, mainly from the IGIS to the PJCIS.
As noted above, the PJCIS may request briefings from the IGIS. The IGIS makes submissions to, and provides evidence at hearings for, the PJCIS's reviews of AIC agency administration and expenditure. The IGIS will often also provide evidence to PJCIS inquiries into legislation that is being proposed or reviewed which is relevant to the IGIS's oversight role or the functions of the AIC agencies more broadly, and to reviews conducted by the INSLM.107 The IGIS's annual report for 2015–16 describes its cooperation with the AAT and the Australian Information Commissioner as assisting in ‘enhancing oversight and promoting good practice in the [AIC] agencies'.108
The INSLM may consult with the IGIS when performing functions relating to Australia's counter-terrorism and national security legislation.109 The PJCIS may refer a matter to the INSLM that it becomes aware of in the course of performing its functions.110
The PJCIS's functions have gradually expanded in recent years, in response to its own recommendations.111 However, those changes have largely related to functions other than AIC agency oversight; in particular, expansion of its legislative review functions and the inclusion of a new function to monitor and review the AFP's counter-terrorism functions.112
Opposition senator Penny Wong introduced the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2015 on 10 August 2015. The Bill lapsed ahead of the 2016 federal election but was restored to the notice paper on 31 August 2016.113 It would amend the composition, functions and powers of the PJCIS.
The Bill would allow the PJCIS to conduct own-motion inquiries into matters relating to one or more of the AIC agencies, providing it had first consulted the responsible minister. It would not affect the existing restrictions preventing the PJCIS from inquiring into operational matters.
As noted above, the PJCIS must currently comprise five senators and six members of the House of Representatives, have a government majority, and a government chair. The Bill would retain the requirement for a government majority, but relax the Senate/House of Representatives ratio so that there would be one senator and one member of the House of Representatives from each of the government and the Opposition, with the remaining members able to be drawn from either House of Parliament. The purpose of this proposed change is to provide more flexibility to ensure the PJCIS has the most qualified membership. However, the Bill would not require any cross-bench representation. Australian Greens senator Nick McKim stated in the second reading debate that the Greens would move an amendment requiring a senator who is not from the government or the Opposition to be one of the eleven members of the PJCIS.114
Amongst other changes, the Bill would also require the IGIS to provide the PJCIS with copies of its inquiry reports within three months of giving them to the Prime Minister or responsible minister, and to add the INSLM and the National Security Adviser (in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) to the list of office-holders from whom the PJCIS can request a briefing.
The most recent independent review of the AIC agencies was completed in June 2017, with a public version of the report released in July 2017.115 The report recommended several changes relating to oversight of Australia's intelligence agencies.
The reviewers assessed that ‘the intelligence enterprise that supports Australia's national security is no longer limited to the six AIC agencies' and considered that a more appropriate frame of reference would be a ‘National Intelligence Community' comprising the six AIC agencies, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), and parts of the AFP and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP).116 Accordingly, they recommended that the jurisdiction of both the PJCIS and the IGIS be expanded to include AUSTRAC in its entirety and the intelligence functions of the AFP, ACIC and the DIBP.117
The reviewers also recommended that the:
While not a recommendation of the review, on the same day the report was released, the Prime Minister also announced the creation of a new Home Affairs portfolio (modelled broadly on the UK Home Office) that will bring together Australia's immigration, border protection, law enforcement and domestic security agencies under a single portfolio.119
A task force led by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will consider the recommendations of the independent review and then manage in tandem the implementation of those that are adopted and the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio.120
The Government of Canada's intelligence-related activities and structures span many organizations, some of which are listed in two locations:
Given that intelligence is created and consumed for purposes other than national security, it is likely that these two lists fail to capture the entire Canadian security and intelligence community.
Canada's core intelligence collector agencies comprise the following:122
While the ministers of public safety and national defence are responsible for activities that take place within their respective portfolios, the prime minister is ultimately accountable to Parliament on national security matters. The prime minister thus chairs the Cabinet Committee on Intelligence and Emergency Management.130
The National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister (NSIA)131 serves as the prime minister's eyes and ears on security and intelligence issues. The NSIA also coordinates the federal security and intelligence community but must rely on suasion alone to do so, as he or she is an appointee with no statutory authorities. Assisted by a deputy NSIA, the NSIA oversees the Privy Council Office's132 Intelligence Assessment Secretariat and its Security and Intelligence Secretariat.
At present, the executive branch relies on three expert review bodies to investigate complaints and examine the lawfulness of the activities of Canada's intelligence and national security agencies (discussed in greater detail below):
Each of these review bodies has been established by statute. Though each claims independence, all three are required by law to submit their annual reports to responsible ministers133 and all are subject to executive branch direction or constraint.134 Ministers must table unclassified versions of these annual reports in each house of Parliament during the first 15 days on which that house is sitting after the day they are received.
None of the intelligence and national security agencies is required to provide an annual report to Parliament. CSIS does, nonetheless, prepare public reports. However, the timing of these reports varies, and the organization's most recent report covers a two-year time frame. The content of these reports has shrunk in size over time and often focuses on broad generalities.
The primary parliamentary reporting obligation for federal departments and agencies takes the form of budget documentation.135 Federal organizations request parliamentary approval to spend funds through the estimates process and outline their funding needs in main and supplementary estimates. In order to provide parliamentarians with more detailed information about what they intend to achieve with the resources provided to them, departments and agencies prepare departmental plans. When the fiscal year is complete, they explain in departmental performance reports how much was spent and what was achieved.
However, neither CSIS nor CSE prepare departmental plans and performance reports. Instead, parliamentarians are provided high-level financial information, as outlined in main and supplementary estimates. Thus, other than what they can glean through questioning officials in public committee hearings, parliamentarians have no information about these agencies' plans, activities or results, despite the significant funds being provided to them. When, during the year through supplementary estimates, these agencies request additional funds – which can be substantial – little or no explanation is provided. Without additional information, it is very difficult for parliamentarians to provide effective financial oversight of these organizations.
On 22 June 2017, Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts (hereafter, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act or NSICPA), received Royal Assent.136 Having come into force on 6 October 2017,137 the NSICPA will create another executive review body – the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) – which will report to the prime minister. NSICOP members will have access to classified information, including legal opinions, but will also be permanently bound to secrecy.
Some have expressed disappointment with the NSICPA, arguing that, by creating a committee of parliamentarians rather than a parliamentary committee, it will only bring Canada in line with where the United Kingdom was in 2012, when that country's Intelligence and Security Committee was still part of the executive branch. In Canada, the notion of a parliamentary review committee permitted to hear and view classified information has been raised in numerous commissions of inquiry, starting with the 1969 Mackenzie Commission, which examined the state of Canada's security system in the aftermath of a series of Soviet spy scandals.
Since neither the Senate nor the House of Commons has committees whose members are authorized to access classified information, Canada's legislature is unable to comprehensively review national security and intelligence activities. Instead, the legislative branch relies on a number of “officers of Parliament” that can, if necessary, gain access to certain classified information and facilities relevant to each officer's mandate. Appointed by orders in council,138 these officers undertake statutorily assigned review work and report their findings to Parliament. Although officers of Parliament may work at the classified level, the reports they submit to Parliament and any subsequent parliamentary testimony they provide must be unclassified.
Neither the Senate nor the House of Commons has established a standing committee whose sole remit is to examine questions of national security. Instead, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security treat national security issues as part of a broader menu of potential study topics. Given their respectively broad remits, these two committees generally address national security matters, including intelligence, in an episodic manner.
The provisions in the NSICPA directing the Senate and the House of Commons to refer NSICOP annual and special reports to these two committees for study will routinize the attention Parliament pays to national security. However, unless these committees' mandates are narrowed down, there are no guarantees that NSICOP reports will be subject to in-depth examination and debate.
From time to time, special parliamentary committees have been struck to dive deeper into national security policy. An example of this is the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act, which was created in 2004 as part of the mandated review of anti-terrorism laws passed in 2001. However, the committee was dissolved in 2013.139
SIRC was created in 1984 under the CSIS Act.140 SIRC comprises a chair plus not fewer than two and not more than four members. Committee members are all privy councillors appointed by the Governor in Council after consultation by the prime minister with the leaders of the opposition parties. SIRC meets approximately nine times a year to set priorities and review the work of its staff. Under section 39(2) of the CSIS Act, SIRC has unfettered access to all information under the control of CSIS, save Cabinet confidences.
An executive director oversees the day-to-day operations of SIRC staff. In the 2017–2018 federal budget, SIRC received just under CAD1.9 million in “strategic funding” (i.e., temporary funding) until 2019–2020, which SIRC says it will use to increase to 24.5 its current complement of 13.7 full‑time‑equivalent staff positions used for lawfulness review work and investigation of complaints.141 Since this funding is temporary, SIRC says it is being forced to rely on short-term staffing options, such as secondments, to fill these positions and that this is causing the organization to experience major human resources challenges.
Until the position of Inspector General of CSIS was eliminated in June 2012, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CSIS's responsible minister, relied on the incumbent to provide annual certification that the Service's operations and activities adhered to the minister's policies and directives. SIRC has now assumed the Inspector General's duties.142
Excluding non-permanent funds, SIRC's total annual budget now stands at around CAD2.8 million.143 By contrast, CSIS's annual budget is approximately CAD577 million.144
OCSEC was created in June 1996 under an order in council. Until the National Defence Act was amended in 2001 to codify CSE and OCSEC authorities and duties, both CSE and OCSEC operated under orders in council.145
OCSEC is headed by a supernumerary judge who is appointed by the Governor in Council and mandated under section 273.63(2) of the National Defence Act to investigate and respond to public complaints and to review CSE activities for lawfulness. If the CSE Commissioner believes CSE has engaged in unlawful activities, he or she must immediately inform the Minister of National Defence and the Attorney General of Canada. Drawing from authorities provided under Part II of the Inquiries Act, the CSE Commissioner has unfettered access to CSE information – with the exception of Cabinet confidences – facilities and staff. Under section 273.65(8) of the National Defence Act, the CSE Commissioner must review CSE activities carried out under ministerial authorization and confirm, in an annual report to the Minister of National Defence, whether these activities were authorized.
Section 273.63(3) of the National Defence Act states:
The Commissioner shall, within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, submit an annual report to the Minister on the Commissioner's activities and findings, and the Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.
The CSE Commissioner serves on a part-time basis only but is supported by a small full-time staff of 11.5 (including the executive director), of which 8.5 full-time equivalent positions are held by the subject matter experts who conduct review work.146 Total annual funding for OCSEC stands at CAD2.1 million, of which CAD1.6 million is used for review work. In its 2017–2018 departmental plan, OCSEC indicated that it intends to request additional permanent funding so as to hire one additional review staff member and modernize its “technology assets.”147 By contrast, CSE's total annual budget stands at CAD596 million.148
The CRCC was created in 2014 through legislation amending the RCMP Act.149 Under this Act, the CRCC is mandated to review complaints made by the public about the on-duty conduct of RCMP members. It also has authority to initiate public interest reviews of RCMP activities but must provide a rationale to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness prior to doing so.150 The CRCC has 67 full-time-equivalent employees, of which 45 are used to conduct investigations. Its total annual budget stands at just under CAD10 million, with CAD7.3 million of this total being used for review activities.151 By contrast, the RCMP's total annual budget stands at roughly CAD3.4 billion.152
Canada's national security and intelligence agencies are subject to oversight by several officers of Parliament. As a result, the committees that consider the reports of these officers may also examine the activities of national security and intelligence agencies. For example, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts examines the reports of the Auditor General of Canada who, from time to time, investigates the management of national security programs.
Similarly, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) examines the reports of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Information Commissioner of Canada, whose work increasingly implicates national security and intelligence agencies, all of which are subject to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. In connection with its recent study of the aforementioned Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, ETHI has also taken testimony directly from implicated departments and agencies, as well as from the three expert review bodies.
While spreading parliamentary review of national security and intelligence activities over multiple committees has the benefit of bringing many “fresh eyes” to examine issues, it also has the downside of reducing the ability of individual parliamentarians to build subject matter expertise. Examining the national security enterprise at an unclassified level and through a narrow lens has challenged the ability of parliamentarians to study its issues in a truly comprehensive fashion.
Only by formulating policy issues within a strategic construct – for example, identifying Canada's intelligence priorities and then routinely addressing the question of how well national capabilities align with this need – can these committees develop the necessary insights and expertise to hold national security and intelligence agencies to account.
However, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security have the potential to develop expertise because they are specifically mandated to examine national security matters. These two committees are considered below.
The Senate created SECD on 15 March 2001, mandating it to examine “matters relating to national defence and security generally, including veterans affairs.”153 Prior to this time, the Senate had only examined national security and intelligence issues in the context of special committees, such as the Senate Committee on Intelligence, which convened in 1987, 1988 and then again in 1999 to examine anti-terrorism activities. The Senate Committee on Intelligence was notable in that its chair attempted to elicit candid responses from agency officials by taking their testimony in camera.
Though SECD's specific orders of reference can change from session to session, this committee has interpreted its broad mandate as permitting examination of DND/Canadian Armed Forces and PSC capabilities, working relationships between various agencies involved in intelligence-gathering and analysis, intelligence agency review mechanisms, and the security of borders and critical infrastructure.154
SECD works at the unclassified level. Under Rule 12-9-2 of The Rules of the Senate, SECD is empowered to send for persons, papers and records.
Until SECU was created by the passing of a motion amending the House of Commons Standing Orders on 5 April 2006, issues involving public safety and national security had been referred to the then House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or its subcommittees. As per Standing Order 104 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, SECU comprises 10 members. At present, six SECU members, including the chair, come from the governing party – the Liberal Party of Canada – and four come from the two opposing parties (three from the Conservative Party of Canada and one from the New Democratic Party of Canada). SECU's chair and two vice-chairs (one from each opposition party) are elected by committee members.
Standing Order 108 mandates standing committees and empowers them to examine and inquire into all matters referred to them by the House of Commons and to report to the House. As a standing committee, SECU is authorized to send for persons, papers and records, and to delegate all or any of its powers to subcommittees. It may meet while the House of Commons is in session and during adjournment periods. SECU can also sit jointly with other standing committees.
Working at the unclassified level, SECU is mandated to examine the policies and activities of one of the largest departmental portfolios – PSC – including the close to 140 statutes this department and its agencies administer. Specifically, SECU is mandated to examine the policies, programs and statutes of PSC, Canada Border Services Agency, CSIS, Correctional Service Canada, Parole Board of Canada, RCMP, SIRC, CRCC, Office of the Correctional Investigator, and the RCMP External Review Committee.155
Thus, and as alluded to above, SECU examines national security issues, but only as part of a broader menu of items that includes matters related to criminal law, corrections and conditional release of federal offenders, border security, policing and law enforcement, crime prevention and emergency management.
SECU recently examined and reported on the NSICPA and on the government's consultation paper on national security. Under the House of Commons Standing Orders, if a committee chair requests a response to a report, the government is required to provide one within 120 days of the report's being presented.
As noted above, on 22 June 2017, Canada's Parliament passed the NSICPA, under which a National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) will be created to examine national security and intelligence issues. Section 8 mandates the NSICOP to review:
- the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence;
- any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the activity is an ongoing operation and the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security; and
- any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Committee.
Under the new legislation, after consultation with specified leaders in the Senate and the House of Commons, NSICOP members will be selected by and report to the prime minister. On 8 January 2016, six months before the legislation was tabled in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister appointed Member of Parliament David McGuinty to take a “leadership position” on the committee and permitted national security and intelligence agencies to brief Mr. McGuinty on issues of concern.156 As a condition of their participation in the NSICOP, all members will be permanently bound to secrecy. Because the NSICOP will not be a parliamentary committee, its members will not enjoy parliamentary privilege, including with respect to any unauthorized disclosures they might make during the course of their other work in Parliament.
The eleven-member NSICOP will comprise currently serving parliamentarians who are not serving ministers or parliamentary secretaries. Up to three members of the committee could come from the Senate, with up to five of the remaining eight members coming from the governing party in the House of Commons. The chair will only be permitted to vote in the event of a tie.
In many respects, the scope of the NSICOP's remit will be determined by its ability to access required information. For example, the original text of the legislation would have effectively eliminated the NSICOP's ability to examine defence intelligence activities by prohibiting access to “information pertaining to ongoing defence intelligence activities supporting ongoing military operations, including the nature and content of plans in support of these military operations.” This language was removed from the legislation, as was language that would have prohibited any form of direct scrutiny of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre (FINTRAC), Canada's financial intelligence agency. The Act enables the NSICOP to access FINTRAC strategic analyses or any other information FINTRAC has not disclosed and that does not reveal the identities of individuals or entities.
Under the NSICPA, committee members will be automatically denied access to Cabinet confidences, information that provides the names of current or intended confidential human sources, and information pertaining to an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may lead to a prosecution. Significant constraints will also be placed on the committee's access to certain types of information, particularly special operational information. However, if a minister were to invoke the provision to deny the NSICOP access to information to which it would otherwise be entitled and which is under the control of a department (section 16), he or she will have to inform the committee of this decision and provide reasons for it. In instances where the denied information was controlled by CSIS, CSE or the RCMP, the appropriate minister will also be required to inform the agency's expert review body and provide reasons for his or her decision. This is meant to ensure that the NSICOP cannot circumvent the minister's denial of access by approaching any of the expert review bodies. The NSICPA seeks to limit ministers' use of this authority by requiring the NSICOP to provide in its annual reports a tally of access denial decisions made under section 16.
Focusing primarily on questions of efficacy, the NSICOP will examine the policies, administration and activities of the national security and intelligence community as a whole. Generally, its reviews of national security activities would be ex post (after the fact), but the NSICPA holds out the possibility that a minister might permit examination of ongoing operational activities.157
The NSICOP will be supported by a small secretariat staffed and run by an appointed executive director who will have deputy minister status.158 Very little public information is available on the expected resourcing of the NSICOP's secretariat. However, based on a table included in the annex of the federal government's Fall 2016 Economic Statement, it appears that the secretariat will have an annual budget of around CAD3.2 million, enough to pay the salaries of the executive director, internal services staff, and three or four research staff.159
The adoption of the NSICPA is just one in a series of recent changes to the authorities and governance framework of the Canadian security and intelligence community. Some of the more controversial changes took place under Bill C-51 – an omnibus anti-terrorism law passed in June 2015 that provided new “threat reduction” authorities to CSIS, enhanced the Public Safety minister's ability to deny disclosure of national security information used in security certificates issued under Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and greatly expanded information-sharing among departments and agencies with national security responsibilities. The current government, which came to power in October 2015, campaigned on a pledge to roll back “problematic” provisions of Bill C-51,160 which it aims to do through the 20 June 2017 tabling of Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters.161
If enacted, Bill C-59 will introduce profound changes to the bodies that currently scrutinize national security and intelligence agencies. For example, Bill C-59 would effectively consolidate OCSEC and SIRC into a single body, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA). The CRCC would continue to exist, but all of its national security-related work would be transferred to the NSIRA. Beyond reviewing the activities of CSIS and CSE, the NSIRA would be required (under clause 8) to review “any matter that relates to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Agency.” This means that the scope of the NSIRA's remit would mirror that of the NSICOP. Finally, the NSIRA would be mandated not only to examine the lawfulness of national security and intelligence activities but also their reasonableness and necessity, thus creating an additional mechanism to trigger legislative and regulatory change.
Bill C-59 would also create an Intelligence Commissioner, a retired judge who would be mandated to examine the reasonableness of conclusions leading to ministerial authorizations for certain types of CSE activities and ministerial determinations regarding CSIS's collection, retention, querying and exploitation of datasets. Unlike the NSIRA, which would be a review body, the Intelligence Commissioner would have an oversight role, putting a stop to or amending planned activities before they happen.
At the same time, Bill C-59 would grant significant new powers to Canada's intelligence agencies. For example, the CSIS Act would be amended to create a regime enabling CSIS to collect and use datasets on Canadians, so long as these datasets were “relevant” to the performance of CSIS duties. These amendments to the CSIS Act appear to respond to a 2016 Federal Court decision in which CSIS was reprimanded for having failed in its duty of candour to the Court regarding its practice of collecting and retaining metadata on Canadians not under investigation.162
CSE would also gain significant new powers. Under Bill C-59's proposed enabling mandate, the Communications Security Establishment Act, CSE will be permitted to engage in “active cyber operations” targeting foreign individuals, states, organizations or terrorist groups. CSE would also be empowered to provide technical and operational support to active cyber operations conducted in the context of military missions. Heretofore, Canada's military has not been permitted to engage in cyber operations of this nature.
Finally, CSE would also be authorized to provide advice and services to protect critical information infrastructure, including infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector and systems and networks used by parliamentarians and the federal courts.
New Zealand has two intelligence and security agencies. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) specialises in human intelligence activities. The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) specialises in signals intelligence and information assurance and cybersecurity activities.163
The functions of each agency are:164
The agencies must act in accordance with New Zealand law and in a manner that facilitates democratic oversight.165
In addition to the NZSIS and the GCSB, the third core agency of the New Zealand Intelligence Community is the National Assessments Bureau within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The New Zealand Defence Force also has intelligence capabilities and a range of other government departments and agencies, notably New Zealand Police, the New Zealand Customs Service and Immigration New Zealand, have intelligence units.166
The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 received Royal Assent on 28 March 2017. The Act, which replaces the four acts that previously applied to the intelligence and security agencies and their oversight bodies, implements the Government's response to the recent independent review of intelligence and security.167
An amendment to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Committee Act 1996 in 2013 introduced a requirement for a review of the intelligence and security agencies to be carried out every five to seven years.168 The report of the first periodic review to be undertaken was published in February 2016.169 Among the review's terms of reference was a requirement to determine whether the current oversight arrangements provided sufficient safeguards at an operational, judicial and political level to ensure the agencies acted lawfully and maintained public confidence.170
The review proposed that the intelligence and security agencies, their oversight bodies and potentially also intelligence assessment should be covered by a single piece of legislation. The legislation would include a new, comprehensive authorisation regime requiring some level of authorisation for all of the agencies' intelligence and security activities that involve gathering information about individuals or organisations, proportionate to the level of intrusion involved. It would also make some changes to facilitate greater oversight of the agencies and accountability for their activities.171
Among the review's recommendations relating to oversight were:172
The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 adopted most, but not all, of the review's recommendations.173
Some sections of the Act came into force on 1 April 2017. The remainder of the Act came into force on 28 September 2017.174
The intelligence and security agencies operate within a framework of executive, parliamentary, independent and judicial oversight. The Prime Minister, as Minister for National Security and Intelligence, is responsible for leading the national security system. The responsible Minister for each agency exercises ministerial oversight within the framework set by the Prime Minister.175 A responsible Minister has sole responsibility for issuing some intelligence warrants and joint responsibility with a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, who is a former judge, for issuing others. Parliamentary scrutiny of the agencies' policies, administration and expenditure is undertaken by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). The IGIS provides independent oversight of the agencies to ensure that they act with propriety and operate lawfully and effectively.
The NZSIS and the GCSB are departments of State.176 Their Directors-General are appointed, have their performance reviewed, and may be dismissed by the State Services Commissioner in accordance with the State Sector Act 1988.177 Each agency must present to its responsible Minister an annual report containing the information required of departments by the Public Finance Act 1989 and the additional information on its activities required by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. The Minister must give a copy of the report to the ISC, and also present a copy, from which some information may be excluded, to Parliament. The report as presented to Parliament must be published on the agency's internet site.178
The Intelligence and Security Committee was established by the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. Previously parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence and security agencies had been undertaken by the Government Administration select committee.179 The intention in establishing a statutory committee was to increase parliamentary oversight of the agencies while remaining sensitive to considerations of national security.180 Parliament has retained its power to inquire into the agencies, but it is the House's practice to make a sessional order for each Parliament that no select committee can examine an intelligence and security agency.181
The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 increases the interaction between the ISC and the IGIS. The ISC is now able to request the IGIS to conduct an inquiry into the agencies' compliance with the law or the propriety of their activities. It also now considers and discusses with the IGIS his or her annual report.182
The functions of the ISC are:
The ISC's functions do not include:
A review of the intelligence and security agencies must be conducted every five to seven years. Before the Prime Minister appoints the reviewers or specifies the terms of reference he or she must consult the ISC. On completion of their report the reviewers must provide it to the ISC which, having considered the report, and excluded any information that cannot be disclosed, will present it to the House.
The Director-General of an intelligence and security agency must appear before the ISC if requested by it to do so. The ISC may request any other person to attend and give evidence before it, or to produce any document or other information that is relevant to its proceedings.
Anyone asked by the ISC to disclose to it any document or other information in his or her possession must either do so, or inform the ISC that the document or information cannot be disclosed because the Director-General of the relevant agency considers it to be sensitive information, as defined by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. The disclosure of sensitive information is not precluded in cases where the Director-General of the relevant agency considers disclosure to be safe. Sensitive documents or information must be disclosed to the ISC if the Prime Minister considers that disclosure is desirable in the public interest.
The ISC's proceedings are proceedings in Parliament for the purposes of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. The ISC's meetings must be convened by the chairperson. Proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the rules and practice of the House of Representatives. The ISC meets in private unless it is conducting an annual financial review, or unless it unanimously resolves otherwise.
The ISC must, having regard generally to security requirements, present an annual report on its activities to Parliament. The House may require the ISC to provide it with a copy of any or all records, including reports, evidence and advice to the ISC, that are held by the ISC in relation to the performance of the first four of its functions as set out above. Before providing a copy of any record to the House, the ISC must remove any information that it is restricted from disclosing to the House.
The ISC must not disclose in a report to Parliament:
Unless it considers that there are compelling reasons in the public interest to do so, the ISC must not disclose in a report to Parliament:
The ISC must comprise between five and seven members, the number to be determined by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. The membership of the ISC must comprise:
If the ISC has five members, one member must be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and two by the Prime Minister. If it has six or seven members, two members must be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and the balance by the Prime Minister. In making their nominations the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister must have regard to security requirements and the proportional representation of political parties in Parliament. When performing the ISC's functions, a member of the ISC acts in his or her official capacity as a member of Parliament.
The names of nominees must be presented by the Prime Minister to the House for its endorsement. If the House declines to endorse a nomination, the Prime Minister must present the name of another member, nominated by the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister as the case requires, for endorsement.
The ISC is chaired by the Prime Minister, or another member of the ISC from time to time appointed by the Prime Minister.
The ISC is assisted in the conduct of its business by officers appointed by the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet with the ISC's concurrence.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is an independent statutory office. It is not subject to general direction from a Minister responsible for an intelligence and security agency, the Prime Minister or other ministers on how its responsibilities should be carried out. The IGIS oversees the NZSIS and the GCSB. The exercise by other agencies, e.g. the National Assessments Bureau, the intelligence services of the New Zealand Defence Force, and the intelligence units of Immigration New Zealand, the New Zealand Customs Service and the New Zealand Police, of their intelligence and security functions does not fall within the IGIS's jurisdiction.183
The office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security was established by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996. The new office replaced the office of Commissioner of Security Appeals, whose function had been to inquire into complaints regarding the NZSIS. The jurisdiction of the new office was extended to cover the GCSB and the conduct of inquiries and reviews became part of its functions. Until 2013 the office was required to be held by a former High Court judge, who carried out the role on a part-time basis.184
Changes were made in 2013 to strengthen the IGIS's role. Provision was made for the appointment of a Deputy Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and staffing was increased. An advisory panel was established to provide advice to the IGIS, who no longer had to be a former judge.185 The Intelligence and Security Act 2017 removes the restriction on inquiries by the IGIS into operationally sensitive matters and clarifies that he or she may review warrants on substantive as well as procedural grounds.186
The functions of the IGIS are:
In undertaking an inquiry, the IGIS has the power:
In conducting any inquiry or review, the IGIS must take into account any relevant ministerial policy statement providing guidance to the agency, and the extent to which the agency has had regard to that statement.
On completion of an inquiry, the IGIS prepares a report containing his or her conclusions and recommendations. If the inquiry concerned a complaint, the report may include recommendations for redressing the complaint, including the payment of compensation.
The IGIS must send the report to both the responsible Minister and the Director-General of the agency to which the inquiry relates. The report must also be sent to the Prime Minister, if the inquiry was conducted at the Prime Minister's request, or to the ISC, if the inquiry was conducted at its request.
The IGIS may also send a report of an inquiry to the ISC if:
The responsible Minister must provide his or her response to the report to the IGIS and to the Director‑General of the agency concerned. If the inquiry was conducted at the request of the ISC, the Minister must also provide the response to the ISC, and may do so if the inquiry was not conducted at the ISC's request.
In the case of an inquiry conducted in relation to a complaint, the IGIS must advise the complainant of his or her conclusions in terms that will not prejudice New Zealand's security or defence, or the international relations of the Government.
A report of an inquiry must also be published on the IGIS's internet site. Restrictions apply to the disclosure of certain information.
The IGIS must report annually to each responsible Minister and to the Prime Minister on his or her operations. The Prime Minister must present the report to Parliament, together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from it. The Prime Minister must also present the Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the report as it was received from the IGIS. The IGIS must publish the report, as presented to Parliament, on the internet. The IGIS may at any time, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, report either generally or in respect of any particular matter to the ISC.
The IGIS is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. Before a recommendation may be made, the Prime Minister must consult the ISC about the proposed appointment and advise the House on the outcome of the consultation. The IGIS is appointed for a term of up to five years, and may be reappointed for a further term of up to three years.
The IGIS may be removed or suspended from office by the Governor-General, on an address from the House of Representatives, for incapacity, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, misconduct, or failure to hold the appropriate security clearance.
As at June 2016, the Office of the ISC comprised the Inspector-General, the Deputy Inspector-General and six staff, including four investigating officers.187
The total budgeted expenditure for 2015/2016 was $1,498,000, approximately one per cent of the budgeted estimates for the NZSIS and the GCSB.188
Applications for the issue of an intelligence warrant must be made by the Director-General of the agency concerned to the authorising Minister, who is the agency's responsible Minister, in the case of a Type 2 warrant, and to the authorising Minister and a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants in the case of a Type 1 warrant.189
A Type 1 warrant authorises an agency to carry out an otherwise unlawful activity for the purpose of collecting information about, or to do any other thing directly in relation to, a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. A Type 2 warrant authorises an agency to carry out an otherwise unlawful activity for the purpose of collecting information, or to do any other thing, in circumstances where a Type 1 warrant is not required.
Up to three Commissioners of Intelligence Warrants, one of whom is the Chief Commissioner, are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Before making a recommendation, the Prime Minister must have consulted the Leader of the Opposition about the proposed appointment. A Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants must have previously held office as a judge of the High Court.190
The Commissioners' functions are:
An authorising Minister may, if satisfied that a situation is urgent and it is necessary to do so, issue a Type 1 warrant without a Commissioner's involvement. Such a warrant will expire after 48 hours unless an application has been made for a warrant via the normal procedures and the authorising Minister and a Commissioner confirm the urgent intelligence warrant. On issuing an urgent intelligence warrant, the authorising Minister must immediately notify the Chief Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, who may revoke the warrant at any time up to the end of the 48 hour expiry period.
The United Kingdom has three intelligence and security services, collectively known as the Agencies:191
In addition to the dedicated intelligence agencies, other elements of the UK's national intelligence machinery are contained within specific government departments:195
Within government, the Prime Minister has overall responsibility for security matters. The Home Secretary has specific responsibility for the Security Service; the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for SIS and GCHQ; and the Defence Secretary for the Defence Intelligence staff. To the extent that the ministers responsible for the various intelligence services are accountable to Parliament, there has always been some degree of parliamentary oversight of the Agencies.
The day-to-day operations of the Agencies are overseen by their respective Heads, each of which has a statutory duty to provide annual reports to the Prime Minister and respective Secretary of State.
The Agencies' accounts are subject to audit by the National Audit Office. They are also shown to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The accounts are not published, for reasons of national security. However, an annual Financial Statement is published covering the Single Intelligence Account, the funding vehicle for the Agencies.196
The Intelligence Services Act 1994 (ISA) put the SIS and GCHQ on a statutory footing and established the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). The members of the ISC are nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by Parliament, to which the ISC reports. The ISC's function is to examine the expenditure, administration, policy and operations of the UK's three main intelligence and security agencies. To this end its members take evidence from Cabinet Ministers and senior officials which is used to formulate committee reports. ISC members are subject to section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 and have access to highly classified material in carrying out their duties.197
The Justice and Security Act 2013 reformed the ISC making it a Committee of Parliament. It gave it greater powers and widened its remit. Originally set up to cover MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, the ISC now also takes an interest in the work of Defence Intelligence and the JIC, as well as law enforcement agencies (police and Customs & Excise).
In addition to general Ministerial responsibility for the Agencies, the executive plays a specific role in the grant of warrants for activities such as interception and equipment interference.198 It is argued that this is necessary because Ministers are accountable, both to Parliament and to the public, for their decisions, and because the grant of warrants involves the exercise of political judgement in sensitive matters of national security and foreign policy.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) provides independent oversight of the use of intrusive powers by the Agencies. The Commissioner makes an annual report to the Prime Minister, which is then published and laid before Parliament, subject to necessary redactions.199
Finally, complaints of unlawful use of covert techniques by public authorities are investigated and determined by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The tribunal was established in October 2000 under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It provides a right of redress for anyone who believes they have been a victim of unlawful action under RIPA or wider human rights infringements in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 consolidated, rationalised, and in certain respects extended, the use of investigatory powers by the Agencies, the police, and other law enforcement bodies.200 When fully in force, it will make a number of significant changes to oversight mechanisms, including:
The ISC is tasked with overseeing the expenditure, administration, policy and operations of the three intelligence agencies. It may also examine or oversee other intelligence and security matters, as set out in memoranda of understanding agreed between the Prime Minister and the ISC.
The ISC is only able to consider operational matters where:
Schedule 1 of the JSA sets out details of the ISC's powers with respect to matters such as access to information. The ISC may ask the heads of any of the three Agencies to disclose information, and they must make it available, or inform the ISC that it cannot be disclosed because the Secretary of State has vetoed disclosure. The same applies to requests for information from Government departments.
The Secretary of State may only veto disclosure of information on two grounds:
This represented a change from the previous position, under which the heads of the Agencies were able to decline to disclose information because it was deemed to be sensitive.
Information is defined as sensitive under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 of the JSA if:
Evidence provided by witnesses to the ISC may not be used in civil, disciplinary or criminal proceedings, unless it was provided in bad faith.
The ISC is required to make an annual report to Parliament on the discharge of its functions. It is also able to make any other reports that it considers appropriate.
The Agencies are able to request that sensitive material is redacted from reports if publication would damage their work, for example by revealing targets, methods, sources or operational capabilities.
Members of the ISC are appointed by their respective Houses of Parliament (the House of Commons or the House of Lords), following nomination by the Prime Minister, as set out in section 1 of the JSA.
The current members of the ISC are listed on the website.
The Committee Chair is elected by the Members. The current chair, Dominic Grieve QC, is a former Attorney General.
Members hold their position on the ISC for the duration of the Parliament during which they were appointed. They can be removed by a resolution of the House by which they were appointed, or if they cease to be an MP, or they become a Minister. A member may also resign.
Since the JSA made the ISC a “Committee of Parliament”, primary responsibility for resourcing rests with Parliament. However, an amendment to the JSA made provision for supplementary funding to be met by the Government. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 provides that a Minister of the Crown may:
The 2015-2016 annual report explained that the ISC is currently supported by four core staff; six staff working on a particular inquiry;202 and a part-time investigator. The ISC's core budget is agreed with the Foreign Secretary on behalf of the National Security Council and is set at £1.3m. This excludes security, IT, telecoms, report publication, accommodation, utilities and centrally-provided corporate services. These are currently provided by the National Security Secretariat and the Cabinet Office.203
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) created the new role of Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) to replace the previous independent oversight regime, comprised of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, and the Surveillance Commissioner. Lord Justice Fulford was recently appointed as the first IPC for a three-year term.204
The IPC, along with a number of judicial commissioners, are appointed by the Prime Minister, following recommendation by the Lord Chancellor; the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales; the Lord President of the Court of Session; and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister must also consult the Scottish Ministers.
They will be required to keep under review, by way of audit, inspection and investigation, the exercise by public authorities of various statutory functions, including those relating to:205
Under section 230 the IPC may also be directed by the Prime Minister to review any other functions of the Agencies.
The IPC will be required to report annually to the Prime Minister. The IPA sets out further detail of what the report must cover, including:
Section 235 provides that any “relevant person” must provide a judicial commissioner with documents, information and assistance, as required for carrying out any investigation, inspection or audit. A “relevant person” includes any employee of a public authority and a telecommunications operator or postal operator who is subject to a requirement imposed by the Act.
Funding, staff and facilities for the IPC are provided for by section 238. Funding is determined by the Secretary of State in consultation with the IPC. The Treasury must approve the number of staff. The judicial commissioners' salary and expenses will be determined by the Treasury.
Ministers are responsible for determining applications to carry out certain activities by the agencies. These include:
Under a convention known as the “Wilson Doctrine”, intelligence agencies will not normally intercept the communications of an MP.
In 2015 the Investigatory Powers Tribunal gave judgment in a case brought by Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoombe, arising from the Snowden leaks, on the status, meaning and effect of the Wilson Doctrine.206
The Tribunal concluded that the Agencies must comply with their own Guidance on the doctrine, which was disclosed for the first time during the proceedings. This makes clear that particular care must be taken to consider whether the interception is necessary and proportionate, and requires that the advice be sought of a legal adviser, the head of the warrantry section and a senior policy officer. The Director General must also be informed. Before deciding whether to issue a warrant, the Secretary of State must consult the Prime Minister, via the Cabinet Secretary.207
The Guidance also states that the Wilson doctrine does not apply to the interception of the communications of a Member of a devolved administration.
Section 26 of the IPA would place the requirement for the Prime Minister's approval on a statutory footing. It would also make clear that it applies in relation to members of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament.
When the relevant provisions come into force, the IPA will introduce a new layer of judicial scrutiny to the process of granting warrants to the Agencies.
At present, the relevant Secretary of State is solely responsible for granting warrants, as described above. Under the new procedure, the warrant will not come into force until it has been reviewed by a judicial commissioner.
The new procedure will apply in relation to the following warrants:
Judicial commissioners are also required to approve decisions to renew or modify these types of warrant.
Judicial commissioners will be appointed as members of the office of the IPC. They will have to hold or have held high judicial office and will subject the Secretary of State's decision to a review, on the same principles as would be applied in an application for judicial review.
These changes provoked considerable controversy during the Bill's passage through Parliament. In particular, the following issues arose during debate:215
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was created by RIPA and given the power to investigate complaints against public bodies' use of investigatory powers.216
The IPT's procedures mean that much of its work is conducted in secret, and it is argued that this is necessary in order to ensure the trust and cooperation of the agencies.
However, it has been criticised for being excessively secretive, and procedurally unfair.
In an attempt to address some of these criticisms, the IPA created a right of appeal on a point of law from the IPT, either to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or the Court of Session in Scotland.
Leave to appeal must be granted, either by the IPT or the appellate court, on the basis that it would raise an important point of principle or practice, or there is some other compelling reason.
This provision is yet to come into force and at present there is no domestic route of appeal from a decision of the IPT. As a result, claimants must pursue appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.
At present there are a number of mechanisms for cooperation between the different oversight bodies. For example, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office has a duty to give the IPT any assistance that it requires in connection with the investigation, consideration or determination of any matter. This may include the Commissioner's opinion on anything the IPT has to decide, meaning that it can take advantage of the Commissioner's expertise when reaching a decision.217
The IPA introduced provisions aimed at further facilitating cooperation:
Except where otherwise specified, this section of the paper is based on the information provided about the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and UK arrangements in the preceding sections.
As noted previously, the Congressional Research Service was unable to participate in the preparation of this paper. Accordingly, the paper does not include a specific section on the US, but information on US arrangements has been included in this section based on research conducted by Cat Barker and Samantha Godec.
There are some notable similarities between the intelligence communities of the Five Eyes countries in terms of jurisdiction, function, and discipline.
Nevertheless, there are differences as to which agencies are considered to comprise the intelligence community.
Some of the differences between intelligence communities simply reflect differences in the nature or scope of intelligence collection and analysis. Others reflect the way different nations have chosen to define or characterise their intelligence communities.
Although development was staggered, the oversight mechanisms of the intelligence agencies in each of the Five Eyes countries have converged in a number of ways.
Firstly, the jurisdiction and mandate of almost all the intelligence agencies are now largely governed by statute, which has paved the way for the establishment of oversight mechanisms.
Secondly, whilst intelligence agencies were initially overseen predominantly by the Executive, each country has gradually developed non-Executive oversight mechanisms. Broadly speaking, the majority have developed at least some if not all of the following mechanisms in addition to Executive oversight:
Differences between countries in relation to which agencies are taken to be part of the intelligence community have implications for oversight. By way of example:
The key parliamentary/congressional committees and independent oversight bodies also differ in whether their mandate is based around specific agencies or specific activities. There are potential benefits and risks associated with each approach. Basing a mandate around specific activities means that it automatically keeps pace if additional agencies become involved in those activities, but might mean that the oversight body cannot look deeply at the way an agency operates more broadly. Basing a mandate around specific agencies allows the oversight body to scrutinise the full range of those agencies' operations, but can also mean that jurisdiction to examine an issue that extends beyond those agencies is limited. Table 1 below compares the jurisdiction of the key bodies.
| Parliamentary/congressional | Independent | |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | PJCIS: all AIC agencies (and AFP terrorism functions) | IGIS: all AIC agencies |
| Canada | NSICOP: will cover activities relating to national security or intelligence | CSIS, CSE and RCMP |
| New Zealand | ISC: NZSIS and GCSB | IGIS: NZSIS and GCSB |
| United Kingdom | ISC: main focus is MI5, MI6 and GCHQ; other government activities relating to intelligence and security as agreed in an MOU with the Prime Minister | IPC: particular statutory functions; may be directed by the Prime Minister to review other functions of the Agencies |
| United States | Congress oversees all USIC agencies221 | Inspectors-General, PCLOB and PIAB: all USIC agencies222 |
A related issue is whether the key bodies overseeing the intelligence agencies have the jurisdiction to look more broadly at intelligence related matters that extend beyond those core agencies. This is a key issue given the increasing cooperation between the intelligence agencies and the broader national security community, and increased sharing and use of intelligence across governments. Can these bodies examine, for example, the use of security intelligence by an agency outside the ‘intelligence community', such as one involved in border protection functions?
Table 2 below compares the extent to which the key bodies in each country are able to examine intelligence related matters across their respective national governments. There is some scope for at least one of the key intelligence oversight mechanisms in each country to examine broader intelligence and security matters, but in most instances there are also clear limits to that power. Further, the parliamentary/congressional committees and independent bodies typically perform different types of oversight, so if only one of them has jurisdiction to look at matters beyond the core intelligence community, the ability to properly examine all such issues remains constrained.
| Parliamentary/congressional | Independent | |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | PJCIS: limited to matters relating to AIC agencies (and certain AFP functions) | IGIS: may only inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to another agency or department at the request of the Prime Minister |
| Canada | NSICOP: jurisdiction based on activities relating to national security or intelligence instead of specific agencies, will mean broader issues may be examined | SIRC, OCSEC, CRCC: each mandated to perform an agency-specific review function. At the time of publication, a bill that would consolidate SIRC and OCSEC into a single review agency (NSIRA) that would also handle CRCC national security-related complaints was before parliament. |
| New Zealand | ISC: may inquire into an intelligence or security matter not directly related to the activities of NZSIS or GCSB on referral from the Prime Minister | IGIS: limited to matters relating to the NZSIS or GCSB |
| United Kingdom | ISC: may examine other government activities relating to intelligence and security as agreed in an MOU with the Prime Minister | IPC: jurisdiction is based on specific statutory functions of agencies; while the functions include those of intelligence and some other agencies, the IPC's functions do not include examining broader issues |
| United States | Congress has broad jurisdiction to examine matters relating to intelligence224 | PIAB and the IG of the Intelligence Community have broad jurisdiction; PCLOB focuses on privacy and civil liberties.225 |
Oversight of intelligence agencies traditionally sits within the executive branch of government, with responsibility falling to the relevant ministers and ultimately the Prime Minister or President. This is the case for all five countries. In all jurisdictions there are various executive review bodies with 'before the event' and ‘after the event'oversight responsibilities. In addition to executive review bodies, in Australia, New Zealand and the UK, the responsible Ministers exercise executive oversight in respect of certain types of warrants and authorisations.
In Australia, responsibility for the intelligence agencies rests with the Attorney-General, Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence, and ultimately the Prime Minister. Ministers are responsible for authorising the use of certain powers, including searching premises; interception of communications; installation of surveillance devices; access to data on computers; and collection of intelligence on Australian citizens by ASIS, AGO or ASD.
In Canada, the Ministers for Public Safety and National Defence, and ultimately the Prime Minister, are responsible for national security issues. The Prime Minister chairs the Cabinet Committee on Intelligence and Emergency Management. Beyond ministerial responsibility, oversight of intelligence agencies is largely implemented by two main executive review bodies, which are restricted to making findings and recommendations.226 SIRC reviews the activities of CSIS ex post facto. SIRC is composed of members of different political parties but is tasked by, and reports to, ministers. CSE is reviewed by the CSE Commissioner, a retired or part-time judge, who can also be tasked by and reports to ministers. In order to collect foreign intelligence and engage in cyber defence activities, CSE operates under ministerial authorizations.
In New Zealand, the Prime Minister, as Minister for National Security and Intelligence, is responsible for leading the national security system. The Minister responsible for each intelligence and security agency exercises ministerial oversight within the framework set by the Prime Minister. They have sole responsibility for issuing some warrants and joint responsibility, with the Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, for issuing others.
In the UK, the Prime Minister has overall responsibility for national security matters. The Home Secretary is responsible for MI5, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is responsible for MI6, and the Defence Secretary is responsible for the Defence Intelligence staff. The relevant Ministers also have responsibility for approving warrants or authorisations for various activities including: property or equipment interference; actions of MI6 or GCHQ outside of the British Isles which would otherwise attract criminal or civil liability; and interception warrants. The interception of the communications of Members of Parliament requires the approval of the Prime Minister.
In the US, the President has overall responsibility for national security matters, though responsibility for specific components of the USIC is spread across several members of Cabinet (including the Secretaries of State, Defense and Homeland Security), and two Cabinet-level officials (the Directors of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency).227 There are several key executive branch mechanisms for overseeing the intelligence community within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) augmented by a large network of agency Inspectors General and legal counsels. Within the EOP, the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) and the President's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) serve the president in an advisory capacity.228 Independent commissions, whether appointed by the President (e.g., Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission) or mandated by Congress (e.g., 9/11 Commission) may also play an important role in oversight of the intelligence community.229
In each jurisdiction, the distribution of responsibilities across different portfolios means that while the head of government has overall responsibility for national security matters, no one minister is responsible for all of the agencies and components of the intelligence apparatus.
Each of the Five Eyes countries, with the notable exception of Canada, has established one or more parliamentary or congressional committees specifically to scrutinise the intelligence agencies. The first of the countries to establish separate committees focused solely on intelligence-related activities was the US, with the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in 1976 and 1977 respectively, by way of resolution.230 The SSCI and HPSCI were established to better integrate (not replace) the interests, responsibilities, and depth of intelligence-related expertise of all the intelligence-related standing committees and to respond to the perceptions of widespread abuse by certain intelligence agencies.231 Following the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980's, congressional oversight was strengthened under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 to ensure that Congress be kept ‘fully and currently informed' of intelligence activities.232
Australia, New Zealand and the UK all established similar committees by way of statute. Australia established the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO in 1988. The committee's formation followed legislative reforms in 1986 to establish the committee and the IGIS.233 When he first announced the establishment of the committee, the then Prime Minister noted the “relevant overseas experience of parliamentary scrutiny of intelligence and security agencies” as evidence that such committees could operate effectively.234 The remit of the Committee was expanded in 2002 and 2005, and since 2005 it has overseen all six agencies comprising the intelligence community.
The US experience also influenced Canada, but it repeatedly rejected the idea of strengthening the role of parliamentarians in scrutinizing intelligence activities. Instead, Canada subsumed intelligence oversight within the broader remits of Standing Committees. Bill C-22, when it enters into force, will establish the first committee of parliamentarians to review intelligence issues, but this committee will be an executive rather than parliamentary body.
In the UK, oversight by Parliamentarians was established under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 in the form of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The powers and remit of the ISC were later expanded under the Justice and Security Act 2013. Scholars have pointed to the potential influence of the European Court of Human Rights, and the impetus to avoid adverse judgments,235 as well as the influence of parliamentary oversight bodies which had already been established in the US and Australia.236
New Zealand established the Intelligence and Security Committee in 1996. An important consideration in the establishment of both the Committee and the IGIS was the desirability of closer conformity with accountability practice and procedure in the UK, Australia and Canada in relation to their intelligence and security agencies.237
Although each country, with the exception of Canada, has established a parliamentary or congressional committee, the mandates of these committees differ.
In the US, while each of the relevant committees has some limits on what they may examine (for example, there is a distinction drawn between military and other forms of intelligence), there are no official limits on what these committees, taken collectively, may inquire into in terms of the intelligence-related activities of the US Government.
The mandate of the UK's ISC, whilst not as far-reaching as the US committees, permits the review of policies, administration and expenditure of the intelligence agencies as well as operational activities in certain circumstances. The ISC may only consider operational activities when requested to do so by the Prime Minister; where the operations are no longer ongoing; or where information is disclosed voluntarily.
Neither the New Zealand ISC nor the Australian PJCIS is permitted to review operational matters. They are charged with examining the administration and expenditure of the agencies (and in the case of the ISC, also their policies), and other matters referred by a house of Parliament or minister (in New Zealand, the Prime Minister; in Australia, a minister responsible for an intelligence agency). The Australian PJCIS may not inquire into individual complaints about the activities of an intelligence agency. The New Zealand ISC may only inquire into complaints by individuals concerning the activities of an agency where they are not capable of being resolved under any other enactment.
In Canada, the NSICOP will have powers of review in relation to policy, administration and expenditure of the intelligence agencies, emulating the powers of the ISC in New Zealand. Similarly to the UK, the NSICOP will also have the power to review operations as long as the operations are not ongoing, or where the appropriate Minister determines that the operational review would not be injurious to national security. However, the NSICOP will be a committee of parliamentarians (as opposed to a parliamentary committee) and would therefore remain part of the Executive.
The parliamentary and congressional committees may initiate their own inquiries or investigations into:
The matters that the Australian and New Zealand committees may examine upon referral from a minister or the Prime Minister respectively, or from a House of Parliament, are broader than the matters they may inquire into of their own accord.
While it may not undertake such an inquiry itself, the New Zealand ISC may request that the NZ IGIS conduct an inquiry into any matter relating to an agency's compliance with the law, or the propriety of its activities. A similar power has been recommended for the Australian PJCIS.
While the mandates of the committees differ, the powers the committees have to examine matters within their mandate are broadly equivalent.
The US President must ensure that the congressional committees are “fully and currently informed” of intelligence activities and “promptly” notified of collection and covert action programs, and any illegal intelligence activities.238 The committees may call officials to testify at hearings and require that information be provided.
In Australia, New Zealand and the UK, the committees have similar powers to request briefings or appearances from the heads of the intelligence agencies, as well as any other person required to give evidence or produce documents. However, in all jurisdictions there are limits to the information that may be requested or compelled under these powers in order to protect sensitive operational information, as further outlined below.
There are limitations placed on the committees' access to sensitive information. In Australia, the PJCIS must not require a person or body to disclose to the committee operationally sensitive information or information that would or might prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations. Ministers may also issue certificates preventing the disclosure of operationally sensitive information to the PJCIS. In New Zealand, the heads of the agencies can refuse to disclose sensitive information. However, the Prime Minister can override the refusal of an agency head to disclose information if it is in the public interest to do so. In the UK, the position is slightly different: heads of agencies can only avoid disclosure to the ISC if a request for disclosure is vetoed by the Secretary of State. This veto power can only be exercised if the information is sensitive and should not be disclosed in the interests of national security, or if it is not proper to do so in accordance with the relevant guidance. In the US, disclosure depends on a number of factors such as the sensitivity of the issue and operational necessities. For example, 'Gang of Eight' notifications refer to issues so sensitive that only eight Members of Congress are notified.239
Each jurisdiction has some form of independent oversight. In Australia and New Zealand, this function is carried out by an Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS). In the UK, this function will be carried out by the newly appointed Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC). In Canada, the executive relies upon three expert review bodies: SIRC, CRCC and OCSEC. If Bill C-59 is passed, this would effectively consolidate the OCSEC and SIRC into a single body, the NSIRA.
The US has a government-wide system of inspectors-general (IGs), which includes IGs that oversee specific intelligence agencies and an IG of the Intelligence Community with cross-agency jurisdiction.240 It also has two boards that serve the President in an advisory capacity: the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).241
The Australian and New Zealand IGISs are appointed by the Governor-General.242 In contrast, the UK's IPC is appointed by the Prime Minister, and the US‘s PCLOB and PIAB members are appointed by the President. There are several methods by which IGs are appointed in the US. The IG of the Intelligence Community is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, as are many of the IGs overseeing individual agencies or components.243
The Canadian SIRC, CRCC and Communications Security Establishment Commissioner are each appointed by the Governor in Council.244
The IGISs in Australia and New Zealand share a similar mandate, which differs from that of the IPC in the UK. The IGISs are responsible for reviewing the operational activities of the intelligence agencies to ensure legal compliance and propriety. In order to carry out their mandates, they are empowered to conduct inquiries into certain matters and to carry out inspections. Inquiries may be conducted at the request of the responsible minister, the Prime Minister, or on their own accord. In New Zealand, the ISC can also request inquiries. The IGISs have the powers to summon and examine persons, compel documents, and enter agency premises. Given the relatively strict limitations on parliamentary oversight in Australia and New Zealand, the IGISs play an important role in holding the agencies to account.
The role of the UK IPC differs from that of the IGISs in Australia and New Zealand. The IPC is mandated to keep under review certain statutory functions, as opposed to a broad power to review the general activities of intelligence agencies (with the exception of review of other functions of the Agencies if directed by the Prime Minister). Specifically, the IPC may audit, inspect and investigate the interception of communications; the acquisition and retention of communications data; equipment interference; and the acquisition, retention and use of bulk personal datasets. These powers of review are in addition to the IPC's powers to authorise certain types of warrants, resulting in a hybrid body which both approves warrants before the event and reviews certain types of activity after the fact.
In Canada, the expert review bodies are mandated to investigate complaints and examine the lawfulness of the activities of Canada's intelligence and national security agencies.
In the US, IGs for specific agencies and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community may conduct audits of, and investigations into, the programs and operations of agencies they oversee. The PIAB oversees the US intelligence community's compliance with applicable laws, Executive Orders and Presidential Directives, while the PCLOB is tasked with ensuring ‘that the federal government's efforts to prevent terrorism are balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties'.245 Both Boards sit within the executive branch but employ external experts to ensure a degree of independence.246
In addition, both Australia and the UK have established independent legislation monitors—the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation respectively. In both jurisdictions, the independent monitors are empowered to review the operation and effectiveness of national security legislation, as opposed to the agencies themselves. However, in performing their roles, they examine the way that agencies apply those laws and may recommend changes to laws, processes and oversight arrangements.247
Traditionally, the judiciary has exercised deference on national security issues. Judicial oversight of intelligence agencies remains limited and divergent amongst the five nations.
In Australia, the judiciary has little involvement in the authorisation of the exercise of powers, most of which rests with ministers. Decisions made under laws governing the intelligence agencies are excluded from the statutory framework for judicial review of executive decisions, but individuals have some scope to apply for judicial review of the legality of actions taken by intelligence officers. The Security Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can undertake merits reviews of most types of adverse security assessments issued by ASIO (which are relied on in a range of administrative decisions, such as passport cancellation) in closed session.
In Canada, specially designated judges in the Federal Court approve warrants requested by CSIS to conduct electronic and other forms of surveillance. For the limited purposes of threat disruption, judges may also approve warrants where CSIS wishes to violate Canadian laws or limit Charter rights within Canada or abroad.248 There is no judicial oversight of CSE, Canada's signals intelligence agency, which does not require warrants to conduct its activities. However, if Bill C-59 is passed, certain proposed CSE ministerial authorizations will be subject to the approval of a newly created Intelligence Commissioner who must be a retired judge of a superior court.
In New Zealand a Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants, who must be a former High Court judge, has joint responsibility with the authorising Minister to issue Type 1 warrants, which authorise an agency to carry out otherwise unlawful activity in relation to a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. Responsibility for the issue of Type 2 warrants, which authorise otherwise unlawful activity that does not relate to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, lies solely with the authorising Minister and does not require the involvement of a Commissioner.
In the UK and the US, specific courts have been established to deal with intelligence-related matters, although their mandates are distinct. In the UK, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) hears complaints of unlawful use of covert techniques by public authorities and provides a right of redress for victims of unlawful action, with a right of appeal on a point of law (although this right of appeal was not in force at the date of publication). The US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court not only approves warrants for intelligence-gathering, but oversees entire intelligence programmes and grants court orders for conducting foreign intelligence investigations, including electronic surveillance and physical searches.249
Despite the limited judicial oversight of intelligence agencies, there have been some recent court cases holding intelligence agencies to account, particularly in relation to intelligence-sharing. Since 2013, the Canadian Federal Court has twice held that CSIS had failed in its duty of candour when it did not inform the Court that it would rely upon assistance from its Five Eyes partners in executing surveillance orders, and when it failed to inform the Court for a decade that it was retaining metadata collected on individuals who were not the target of a warrant.250 Similarly, in the UK, the IPT held that intelligence-sharing between the UK and US contravened the European Convention on Human Rights due to the lack of public clarity regarding the legal framework for such intelligence-sharing.251 Further, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has found that, under the Safe Harbour Agreement between the EU and the US, US agencies were accessing data beyond that which is permitted by the EU data privacy rules.252 The sharing of intelligence is therefore a matter which is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Data retention powers have also been subject to recent judicial scrutiny. In the UK, the High Court recently held that the UK's emergency data retention legislation, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, violated EU data privacy rules in large part due to inadequacies in the oversight regime created by the legislation.253
Each of the countries examined makes some information available about the budget allocations to intelligence agencies, but none makes public the separate allocations for all agencies.
Australia's national budget papers include agency-specific allocations for ASIO, ASIS and ONA (though it appears that not all funding is included, at least for ASIO and ASIS). The allocations for the three agencies in the Defence portfolio are included in the broader budget for the Department of Defence.
Canada and New Zealand are similar to Australia in that budgets are made public for the CSIS, CSE and RCMP (in the case of Canada) and NZSIS and GCSB (in the case of New Zealand), with other intelligence-related funding included in budgets for broader portfolios but not disaggregated.
The UK Government releases a Single Intelligence Account that outlines the total funding across MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (though GCHQ also receives funding under the National Cyber Security Programme).254 Other intelligence-related funding is included in the broader budget for the Ministry of Defence.
The US Government publishes the total budgets allocated to the two major components of its intelligence budget—the National Intelligence Program and the Military Intelligence Program. However, some intelligence funding falls outside those programs.255
There will always be a tension in democratic societies between the need for intelligence agencies to operate largely in secret, and the need for those agencies to be held accountable for their actions. The frameworks developed by the five countries considered in this paper represent the compromises reached between these two imperatives.
This research paper highlights the differences in the way that each country has chosen to conduct oversight of the intelligence community. What might work well in one country may not necessarily be consistent with the institutions and norms of another. Instead, the oversight frameworks reflect each nation's political structure, history, and culture, and therefore differ in some of the particulars. However, each country has developed a framework that includes a system of checks and balances that spans the various branches of government, and which aims to ensure that agencies are accountable for both their administration and expenditure and the legality and propriety of their activities.
The intelligence communities have evolved to meet new challenges as they arise, and will continue to do so. It will be important for the oversight arrangements to keep pace with such changes, and there may well be lessons that the countries considered in this paper can learn from one another as they each continue to review and strengthen their oversight mechanisms.
† This paper is a collaboration between parliamentary researchers from four countries. Each is separately responsible for the content and accuracy of the contributions. We are grateful to authors from Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom for their contributions to the paper. [ Return to text ]
(1.99 mB, 179 pages), 29 February 2016, p. 46; National Security Agency Central Security Service, ‘UKUSA Agreement Release 1940–1956', National Security Agency website. In April 2017, Canada released a redacted version of the 1949 CANUSA agreement: B Robinson, ‘CANUSA Agreement declassified', Lux Ex Umbra blog, 23 April 2017. [ Return to text ] (3.40 mB, 120 pages), IGIS, 2017, p. v. [ Return to text ] (1.92 mB, 136 pages), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, June 2017, pp. 46–48. [ Return to text ] (88 kB, 3 pages)', Information Brief, ASIO website. [ Return to text ] (167 kB, 71 pages), Australian Parliament, May 1999, p. 44; PJCIS, Advisory report on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, Australian Parliament, 27 February 2015, p. 258. It is possible that other ministerial references resulted from suggestions or requests from the committee; such matters may not always be explicitly mentioned in inquiry reports. [ Return to text ] (150 kB, 7 pages), IGIS, 2016, p. 4; V Thom, ‘Reflections of a former Inspector General of Intelligence and Security', AIAL Forum, 83, April 2016, pp. 11–17. [ Return to text ] (3.40 mB, 120 pages), p. 53. [ Return to text ] (1.62 mB, 330 pages), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2017, p. 255. [ Return to text ] (790 kB, 68 pages), report no. 47, April 2006, pp. 5–7. [ Return to text ] (88 kB, 3 pages)', op. cit. [ Return to text ] (183 kB, 8 pages) to INSLM, Review of certain questioning and detention powers in relation to terrorism, July 2016. [ Return to text ]Paragraph 273.63(6) of the National Defence Act allows the Governor in Council to authorize me to engage in any related activity. Article 54 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act allows the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to request from SIRC a ‘special report concerning any matter that relates to the performance of its duties and functions.' I am of the opinion that my office and SIRC could, by virtue of these provisions, be asked to conduct a joint review or complementary reviews of certain activities involving both CSEC and CSIS.See Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, “Commissioner's Message,” 2011-2012 Annual Report June 2012. At present, section 45.34 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act stipulates that, prior to undertaking a self-initiated review, the Commissioner of the CRCC must provide a rationale to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for his or her belief that the Commission is sufficiently resourced to undertake the review and why the review does not duplicate the work of any other review or inquiry. [ Return to text ]
(1.99 mB, 196 pages),” SI/2017-63, Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 151, No. 21, October 18, 2017, p. 2902. [ Return to text ] (7.65 mB, 88 pages), October 2015, p. 53. [ Return to text ] (1.99 mB, 179 pages), 2016 [ Return to text ] (2.36 mB, 63 pages), as reported from the Committee on the Intelligence and Security Agencies Bill, p. ii, 1996 [ Return to text ] (140 kB, 5 pages); David McGee, Parliamentary practice in New Zealand (13.1 mB, 896 pages), 4th ed., edited by Mary Harris and David Wilson, Oratia Books, 2017, p. 505. [ Return to text ] (815 kB, 40 pages), p. 3, 4 [ Return to text ] (602 kB, 28 pages), p. 2 [ Return to text ] (601 kB, 28 pages), p. 9 [ Return to text ] (277 kB, 22 pages), HC 363, July 2016 [ Return to text ] (486 kB, 42 pages), 19 November 2015; CBP 7518 Investigatory Powers Bill (826 kB, 77 pages), 11 March 2016; CBP 7578 Investigatory Powers Bill: Committee Stage Report (561 kB, 35 pages), 2 June 2016; CBP 7746 Investigatory Powers Bill: Lords amendments (468 kB, 19 pages), 28 October 2016. [ Return to text ] (286 kB, 28 pages), October 2014 [ Return to text ] (375 kB, 21 pages), HC 444, July 2016 [ Return to text ] (482 kB, 25 pages) [ Return to text ] (486 kB, 42 pages), 19 November 2015; CBP 7518 Investigatory Powers Bill (826 kB, 77 pages), 11 March 2016; CBP 7578 Investigatory Powers Bill: Committee Stage Report (561 kB, 35 pages), 2 June 2016; CBP 7746 Investigatory Powers Bill: Lords amendments (458 kB, 19 pages), 28 October 2016 [ Return to text ] (318 kB, 2 pages), CRS in Focus, IF10525, Congressional Research Service (CRS), 5 December 2016. [ Return to text ] (411 kB, 41 pages), CRS Report for Congress, RL32525, CRS, 14 May 2012; ZK Goldman, ‘The emergence of intelligence governance', in ZK Goldman and SJ Rascoff, eds, Global intelligence oversight: governing security in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford University Press, New York, 2016, pp. 207–234. [ Return to text ] (366 kB, 20 pages), CRS Report, R43814, CRS, 8 December 2014; US Government Accountability Office (GAO), Inspectors General: reporting on independence, effectiveness, and expertise (566 kB, 32 pages), GAO, September 2011; Goldman, ‘The emergence of intelligence governance', op. cit. [ Return to text ] (102 kB, 7 pages). [ Return to text ] (476 kB, 137 pages), respectively. [ Return to text ] (955 kB, 22 pages), CRS Report, R44381, CRS, 8 November 2016; A Daugherty Miles, Intelligence Community Programs, Management, and Enduring Issues (1.47 mB, 74 pages), CRS Report, R44681, 8 November 2016. [ Return to text ]© Library of Parliament