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

Certainly, the government does not agree with this amendment. Senator Ludwig has touched on some of the reasons on which the government has a similar view. I think that to compare stored communications with a communication that is taking place is somewhat unreal. To therefore say that stored communications need a higher threshold of offences, which attract a minimum seven-year penalty, is accordingly inappropriate.

I think that once a message or communication has been transmitted it is of a different nature to one that is in process. That is precisely what was acknowledged by Mr Blunn in his report when he acknowledged the difference between real-time interception and a communication that has been received. He recommended that the distinction between intercepting real-time communications and accessing stored communication be maintained. The bill maintains that, and I might just say that when you deal with the post, sending a letter through the mail, it is a written communication.

We have postal warrants, which can be obtained for the interception of mail. That letter is in a similar position to an email, which is a stored communication. It is different whilst it is being communicated, in that a person is speaking on the telephone or entering text into their computer and transmitting it. As Mr Blunn said, that difference has to be maintained. That is what this legislation does. We believe that the Democrats amendment places too much emphasis on the fact that stored communication is just as important as the communication in process. Three years is sufficient and affords law enforcement the opportunity to investigate serious offences and use the mechanisms that the bill provides.