The issue in 2020 of new ministerial guidelines ('2020 Guidelines') for the performance by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisa-tion ('ASIO') of its functions and the exercise of its powers as relevant to security, after a 13-year interval, is significant as very substantial changes in ASIO's legislation, powers, resources and priorities occurred during that time.
The 2020 Guidelines reveal critical new issues in their review processes, content and operation. These issues should be addressed if the Guidelines are to achieve optimal, integrated and complementary performance as one of several ASIO accountability mechanisms, in turn part of minis-terial responsibility under the chosen Australian parliamentary model of human rights.
There are several pressing reform issues in the 2020 Guidelines, including: the need to improve consultative processes for review and development to match the expanding reach of ASIO security activities; the fact that the 2020 Guidelines authorise classified ASIO policies and thereby provide insufficient public guidance; and, the capacity of the 2020 Guidelines to interpretively enlarge the concept of relevance to security and, in particular, broaden the concept of politically motivated violence.
Further important issues and reforms arise from the treatment by the 2020 Guidelines of exiting or remediating the intelligence gathering process, including the collation and retention of personal information, as well a need to more clearly shape proportionality matters in familiar legal principles. Noticeable deficiencies in the 2020 Guidelines give cause for concern and reflection. Specific and broader reforms to the processes generating, and the content informing, the Guidelines are canvassed throughout the article and in its conclusion. These reforms are intended to improve the presently understated function of the 2020 Guidelines as part of a more integrated and responsive ASIO accountability framework.