Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (after line 17), after subsection 25(6), insert:

  (6A) Subsection (5) authorises the use of a device to obtain access to data only if the total number of:

  (a) devices used to obtain access to data; and

  (b) devices from which data has been obtained;

(other than devices owned by the Commonwealth and brought on to premises specified in the warrant for the purposes of executing the warrant) in accordance with the warrant is no more than 20.

(2) Schedule 2, item 25, page 30 (after line 23), after subsection 25A(5), insert:

  (5AA) Subsection (4) authorises the use of a device to obtain access to data only if the total number of:

  (a) devices used to obtain access to data; and

  (b) devices from which data has been obtained;

(other than devices owned by the Commonwealth and brought on to premises specified in the warrant for the purposes of executing the warrant) in accordance with the warrant is no more than 20.

There is a simple principle underlying this set of amendments and it goes to some of the questions that I was asking earlier. What appears to be the case, given the government's answers, is that someone who has done nothing wrong, who is just an innocent bystander, can now have their computer, their device, their phone accessed by security agencies who get one of these warrants. What appears to be the case is that, under this new expanded definition of 'computer', which is not only one or more computers but a network or indeed a network of networks, this could be expanded under one warrant to include the whole internet—the internet being a network of a network of computers. In other words, every computer or device connected to a network of networks could now be the subject of scrutiny by the one warrant, even though you are not suspected of having done anything wrong.

I listen to the shadow Attorney-General, who said that he wanted to dispel any suggestion that somehow one warrant could be extended to the whole of the internet. So I move these amendments and I ask the minister a question in so doing. The question that I asked the minister is: is there an upper limit on the number of devices that can be accessed? This amendment proposes 20. The minister and others may say that 20 is not practical. We understand, say the Greens, that things have moved on in terms of technology and it may well be the case that in one household or in the possession of one person they may have multiple devices whereas previously they might have only held at one. So we concede that there is a need for the provision to be updated, but the legislation at the moment is limitless. So, firstly, I ask the minister: given what the shadow Attorney-General said that basically it is not limitless and you could not pointed to the whole internet, is that right? Is there an upper limit and, if so, what is it? Secondly, if the minister does not accept this amendment because 20 is seen to be impracticable, what would be an appropriate way of doing it? Is it to allow a judge or someone else to set a limit? Is it to allow some external scrutiny to ensure the people who have done nothing wrong are not going to be trampled by a warrant? Or, will you allow the provisions of a limitless number of devices to be subject to one single warrant?

See this speech in context