Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

I will deal with the questions that Senator Brown mentioned at the appropriate stage, when, no doubt, they will be raised. I would like to thank senators for their contributions to the debate, and I thank the members of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for their efforts in inquiring into the provisions of what is a very important bill. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 illustrates the government’s commitment to ensuring that security and law enforcement agencies are equipped with appropriate powers to combat and prevent serious crime, including terrorism. At the same time, the bill reflects the government’s consistent efforts to ensure that there are appropriate privacy protections for the users of Australian telecommunications systems. (Quorum formed)

The implementation of the recommendations of the Blunn report and the regulation of access to communications provide greater certainty and clarity for our law enforcement and regulatory agencies, telecommunications industry participants and users of Australian telecommunications systems. The new stored communications warrant regime implements Tony Blunn’s recommendation for overarching legislation regulating access to communications such as email, voicemail and SMS messages. The new regime strikes a careful balance, on the one hand creating a new prima facie protection for stored communications while on the other creating a defined regime to provide law enforcement agencies with appropriate access.

The bill will also make important amendments to the interception regime to assist agencies to counter measures adopted by persons suspected of serious criminal activity to evade telecommunications interception. Interception under these new amendments will be used only as an investigative tool of last resort and will be subject to strict controls. It will be available only for the investigation of the most serious crimes. The bill achieves an appropriate balance between providing for the access needs of law enforcement and security agencies and maintaining the privacy underpinnings of the interception regime. Strong safeguards already contained in the interception regime will continue to apply. These include restrictions on the use of any intercepted material, as well as independent oversight and annual reporting to the parliament.

I note that there will be amendments moved at the committee stage. There are a number from the opposition and the Democrats, I think, and certainly the government will be moving amendments. The government amendments in part relate to the Senate committee’s consideration of the bill as well as some amendments which have been included to ensure the effective operation of the stored communications regime. But we will deal with those during the committee stage.

These amendments, which I will outline in greater detail at the committee stage, are practical adjustments to the measures in the bill to enhance its operation and to add further accountability measures. The government will continue to consider the recommendations made by the Senate committee in its report in the coming months. In the event that further amendments to the measures in the bill are appropriate, the government would anticipate addressing those issues in the spring session of parliament. This bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to providing comprehensive safeguards for the privacy of communications while ensuring appropriate access for the purposes of combating serious crimes and threats to national security. (Quorum formed)

In relation to the contributions by various senators, some questions were alluded to. I think Senator Brown mentioned some. I would raise one aspect. Senator Stott Despoja compared the Australian situation to the US situation. Certainly it is misleading to compare Australian interception rates with US interception rates. We have totally different legal frameworks. Both the Attorney-General and I have commented on this before. The Attorney-General addressed this comprehensively in the second reading speech. I will not go into great detail here, but it is obvious that, where you have different regimes, you will have varying statistics in relation to interception, be they telephone or otherwise, and to compare them is indeed misleading. In fact, it could be argued that, if you have more warrants issued in a judicial system for the interception of telephones, it could mean that you have greater safeguards in that you have to get warrants for those intercepts and that, in those jurisdictions which have a lesser amount of warrants, there was not a requirement that in every case you have a warrant. That is just one perverse conclusion that could be drawn from a comparison between Australia and the United States. I certainly take issue with that point that was made by Senator Stott Despoja.

This is a very important bill indeed. It is vital for the interests of this country that it be passed. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.