This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The Australian federal police will be called before a parliamentary committee to explain its decision to launch raids on journalists, as a Labor senator calls for a massive expansion of parliamentary oversight of police and security agencies.

The Liberal MP Craig Kelly, who chairs parliament’s joint committee on law enforcement, said asking the AFP to justify the widely condemned raids would be “the first order of business” once MPs returned to Canberra in July.

On Thursday the Labor senator Doug Cameron told Guardian Australia the oversight powers of parliament’s committees were “third division and not A grade” compared with the US and UK, citing an inability to investigate the operation of security agencies.

Kelly, a conservative Liberal MP from New South Wales, said the bipartisan committee on law enforcement had scope to examine the activities and powers of the AFP and said the acting commissioner, Neil Gaughan, needed to appear to “give us an explanation as to why this occurred”.

Whistleblower protections 'a sham', says lawyer whose leaks led to ABC raids Read more

“We would call in the commissioner of the AFP and he would have to be cross-examined by members of the committee,” Kelly told Guardian Australia.

“I understand there is a need for balance. No one likes to see journalists’ homes being raided but the security people that we have, and the AFP, have certain responsibilities as well.

“We don’t want to be in a position where we are prejudging anything, but that is what the committee is there for, to have that oversight.”

On Thursday Gaughan all but confirmed the journalists themselves were at risk of prosecution in the case of the ABC’s report of alleged unlawful killings by Australian troops and Annika Smethurst’s report of plans to extend powers to spy on Australian citizens.

But while MPs will interrogate the raids through parliament’s existing mechanisms, Cameron wants a standing committee established in addition to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, which scrutinises legislation.

The idea for a standing committee is one of many proposed to deal with the shocked reaction at the extent of Australia’s secrecy laws, which can penalise both public servants who make unauthorised disclosures and journalists who publish official secrets.

The idea builds on work by the former Labor senator John Faulkner and a private member’s bill by Labor’s Senate leader, Penny Wong, to give the existing committee power to start its own inquiries, but goes further by calling for oversight of operations and the processes of security agencies.

“In a democracy you can’t hand over to the AFP and security services complete and unequivocal independence from parliamentary oversight,” Cameron said. “Once you start giving these agencies more power we have to have more oversight.”

Cameron said it was “very difficult” to get information through the Senate estimates process, with police using the fact investigations were still active to block questioning.

The standing committee could hold hearings in private where necessary or in public where in the public interest, he said.

The PJCIS is expressly forbidden from reviewing intelligence gathering, operational methods, particular operations, information from a foreign government or complaints against security agencies.

Cameron said parliament was “excluded from oversight” and the existing committee was “restricted”.

“If you want the public to have confidence in the federal police and security agencies they have to have confidence there is proper oversight from the people they elect.”

In the UK the intelligence and security committee can review operational information where it is provided voluntarily, while in the US the Senate and House select committees on intelligence can review operations as a matter of course.

The raid on the ABC shows we need a law to protect journalists and their sources | Peter Greste Read more

Last year after a push from Centre Alliance, government departments including the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet rejected a call for greater parliamentary oversight of security agencies, citing the existing inspector general of intelligence and security.

Labor’s home affairs spokeswoman, Kristina Keneally, said: “The principle of accompanying new powers with new oversight is one that Labor has long supported.

“Of course, any legislation we submit in this new parliament will go through our usual processes, but this has been a longstanding commitment from Labor.”

The Greens have proposed stronger whistleblower protections and a charter of rights in response to the raids, while Centre Alliance has proposed adding a constitutional protection for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick said the raids “provide a salutary warning that freedom of the press, a pillar of our democracy, cannot be taken for granted, and indeed is under significant threat”.

“A constitutional amendment along these lines would put a brake on any future government efforts to suppress the freedom of the press or freedom of expression for all Australians,” he said. “It would also set a clear benchmark against which current laws can be judged.”

Scott Morrison has suggested he is “open to discussing” concerns about security laws’ impact on the press but has not proposed any substantive changes to secrecy laws.

Keneally has suggested to the government that Labor would support a process to review national security laws, provided it was on a bipartisan basis.

“The government of the day is the Morrison government and they need to stand up, speak on this issue; if they want to work with us on this, I say the door is open,” she said on Thursday.