Civil liberties groups have expressed alarm at moves by Australia's Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) to expand its range of intelligence-gathering powers.

ASIS - Australia's foreign intelligence service - is arguing for an equivalent legal framework for what it calls "particularly intrusive" activities such as the use of listening devices, tracking devices and telecommunications intercepts as that currently allowed by its domestic counterpart, ASIO.

It is well documented that ASIS was conceived by Robert Menzies in 1950 and that for much of its early life ASIS was itself one of Australia's best-kept secrets.

It was not until 1977 that it was publicly acknowledged and it was only last year that an ASIS director-general, Nick Warner, made the first public address about the role and nature of Australia's foreign spy service.

In breaking cover, the ASIS chief was even then making the case for change.

"Over the next 10 to 15 years, as Australia continues to grow and change, and the threats and challenges facing us evolve, ASIS will need to continue to adapt," he said.

Now it is clear that ASIS is hoping that evolution will lead to a significant expansion of its intelligence gathering powers.

In its submission to the joint parliamentary inquiry into potential reforms of national security legislation, ASIS argues the intelligence environment has changed considerably and that in the post 9/11 environment it is working much more closely with ASIO.

"While... agencies such as ASIS are primarily focused on foreign intelligence and ASIO is primarily focused on security intelligence, the reality is that these functions will often intersect and overlap," the submission said.

'Elegant solution'



ASIS wants changes to the Intelligence Services Act that would allow it to obtain a warrant to conduct technological surveillance operations under the same conditions as ASIO.

ASIS argues the different legislative regimes that now apply to the agencies have identified situations where ASIO could properly collect intelligence on an Australian because it would be relevant to security but ASIS could not assist ASIO in collecting the intelligence.

The proposal for a common standard has been raised by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and is cited by the ASIS submission as an "elegant solution".

Traditionally, ASIS and ASIO have had an almost competitive relationship.

That has gradually begun to change in the years since September 11, 2001.

The two do now work much more closely together and work more closely with foreign agencies as well.

The security environment has changed considerably, but so too has the technological environment.

In the intelligence world many argue that the legal framework now lags well behind technology.

Cyber security has emerged as one of our biggest threats and computer-generated communicators like Skype, Twitter and Facebook were not even thought of just a few years ago, let alone back in Menzies's day.

The ASIS submission argues that in this new world, the functions of ASIS and ASIO now often intersect and overlap.

"It is in Australia's national interest that where this occurs, Australia's foreign intelligence and security services are able to interact and work seamlessly together," it said.

'Power grab'

But the submission is seen by civil rights groups as an unwarranted grab for power and a potential further erosion of personal freedom.



Simon Breheny, director of the legal rights project at the Institute of Public Affairs, describes the ASIS submission as a "grab for more power".

"We constantly see a reference to the national interest when these agencies try and justify the power they have," he said.

"Giving more power to ASIS is in ASIS's interest but I doubt it's in the national interest.

"We simply can't be in the situation where year on year we're piling more and more powers on to our intelligence services.

"We're giving them more and more money and were allowing them more and more to take away Australia's civil liberties, in particular our right of privacy.

"There's no reason that next year they won't be asking for more powers even if the powers they asked for this year are granted to them."

The committee is considering a range of reforms to national security legislation, including intelligence gathering and data retention.

It is understood there is recognition within the committee that there is a need to address the technology gap, and that while the Telecommunications (Intercept and Access) Act has been amended on numerous occasions, there is not much appetite for another tack-on amendment.

A complete rewrite could even be on the cards.

The committee is expected to table its findings before the election, but significant legislative changes will probably be something the next government will have to address.