However a government request for expedited review meant consultation was very short and the PJCIS produced an unusually short report, with limited recommendations, in early December 2018.

The following day the Bill passed Parliament, with over 170 amendments to it and amendments to 10 other Acts. But a condition was that the Committee should continue its own review, and that the legislation should be independently reviewed.

Public consent to intrusive laws depends on Australians’ trust in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Perhaps reflecting the challenges of the debate, the PJCIS referred the legislation to me as the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor - to review, the first time it has exercised its power to do so.

As the Monitor, I am independent from both government and parliament and have Royal Commission-like powers.

My statutory role is to question whether the Act and related Acts strike the right balance between security and human rights.

New and intrusive laws, just like new threats, are often unsettling in their novelty and reach. They raise legitimate questions: Do they go too far? Do they work? Are they needed? Do they properly deal with legitimate human rights concerns?

These are the ultimate questions I must answer, based on the evidence and submissions I gather in my inquiry.


Public consent to intrusive laws depends on Australians’ trust in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to keep us safe, act lawfully, and to interfere with legitimate rights as little as reasonably possible.

Further, in 21st Century Australia, trust in intelligence and law enforcement agencies depends not only on those institutions so acting, but also on mechanisms to verify that they have done so.

In a post-Snowden world, trust depends on verification rather than just reputation. Trust by proxy may not be enough.

National security laws speak to our character as a nation and reflect how we balance rights with security.

The Act contains significant powers. These include the much-discussed industry assistance framework that authorises agencies to request or compel assistance from the global communications supply chain - the full range of companies that supply communications services and devices in Australia.

Important questions

This might include assisting the police with their functions, such as accessing encrypted messages, and even, in some circumstances, to require by, Technical Capability Notice, that such companies build a capability or functionality to provide that assistance.


The Act also provides a range of other powers including revised powers for ASIO and law enforcement to access computers and devices under warrant, and new powers for ASIO to obtain compulsory assistance that could compel a person to attend a place to assist with accessing a locked device such as a mobile phone.

Large and important specific questions in my review (for which I seek help in finding answers) seem likely to include the following.

First, is the law in any respect too wide, too intrusive, or lacking in sufficient safeguards?

Second, does the law have disproportionate or unintended adverse effects on Australian industry?

Third, does the law in fact undermine lawful encryption, say in banking?

Fourth, is the law expressed in terms likely to remain relevant as technology changes?

I intend to use my statutory powers to see any classified or other official information that I need, but in seeking to reach my own conclusions about whether these laws achieve the right balance, I must also receive the views of civil society and, for the first time, industry.

Answers to questions about necessity and proportionality cannot be informed by the views of agencies or governments alone, and I see these consultations as vital in reaching my conclusion on these matters and ensuring that my findings and recommendations are evidence-based.

So I encourage all stakeholders to engage with the review and make a submission. My office has a good track record of recommendations being acted on, and quite quickly, by both government and parliament and my report must be tabled promptly.

I look forward to industry and civil society engagement and have extended the time for receipt of submissions to 1 November 2019.

Dr James Renwick CSC SC is Australia’s Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. His most recent reports concern loss of citizenship for terrorist activity, and children and terrorism prosecutions. See www.inslm.gov.au.