Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I have only a couple of quick comments in respect of this. Senator Brown again sends a barb across to Labor. Labor indicated its position in respect of this bill very early on. It engaged in the process. It in fact engaged way back in 2002, because this had its genesis in us looking at stored communications and the problems of how you deal with SMS and email in the modern technological era we find ourselves in.

In fact, Labor have been intimately involved in all the committee hearings from 2002 until now, and we have sought to make recommendations in the committees and to move amendments in here to make sure that this government does not get away with tipping the balance towards law enforcement agencies. We have sought to make sure that there are reasoned and sensible arguments put forward as to why recommendations should be adopted and amendments made to give effect to those recommendations. Labor has been there throughout that whole debate.

I am not going to argue about whether the Greens have or have not been involved in the debate—it is not my place to do that. We are here to argue for our recommendations and to indicate why we will not support the Greens amendment. The Greens amendment, quite frankly, was not a matter that was properly examined by the committee; it was not brought to the committee for it to have a look it. Unfortunately, the amendment goes much further than the bill does. What it purports to do is, as Senator Ellison said, put politicians above the law. That is not something that Labor supports. We do not want to do that; neither do we want to put High Court judges or Federal Court judges above the law, for that matter.

The amendment also winds back the clock in terms of telecommunications interception legislation. Perhaps it might be clearer if Senator Brown had indicated right from the start that his problem is that he does not agree with telecommunications interception legislation. I understand the position that you might adopt in respect of that. It is not a position that Labor adopts, but I can understand why the Greens might adopt that position.

There is a balance to be struck here involving privacy. Essentially, this is privacy legislation; that is what it is about. There is a balance to be struck between privacy concerns and ensuring that law enforcement agencies have sufficient powers—but not more than is necessary—so that they can fight drug traffickers and the rest. Senator Brown says that the amendment is a protection that is needed. However, this protection goes further than simply covering what is in this bill; it goes to the whole of the telecommunications legislation. He wants to provide those sorts of protections over the whole telecommunications interception regime. The committee did not have an opportunity to examine that.

Senator Brown, if you want to continue with that view, there will be an opportunity in the review of the telecommunications interception legislation for you to put your position articulately and clearly. Blunn indicated that this is a matter that is not going to rest here. There is going to be further opportunity to debate these issues, and I look forward to your view as to how those matters should be dealt with, rather than moving an amendment here that seeks to cut across the whole of the telecommunications interception regime without, I think, reasoned thought or argument as to why these provisions should be supported.

I understand that you might want to rely on an opinion piece in an essay by Professor Williams, which is a very good essay, quite frankly. In the committee process, we relied on his written submissions and the evidence that he gave, which was extraordinarily helpful. In fact, the recommendations that he made, I think, found their way into the committee’s recommendations and subsequently into amendments. They may be in a slightly different form but, effectively, the gist of those matters is in Labor’s amendments because we wanted to ensure that the bill strikes the right balance—and Labor are keen to ensure that that occurs. Senator Brown, I am not so sure that you are here to participate in that process.