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

The easiest way to put this is that it seems to be more of a query on the scope of certain government security and law enforcement agencies to use network protection information for disciplinary purposes. While not removing this capability, the amendments proposed by the Greens would limit the use of the information to disciplinary action relevant to activities that posed a risk to network security. Of course, the term ‘network security’ is not defined. Rather, the amendments include power for the Attorney-General to develop guidelines on the definition. In practice, though, this would require the Attorney to develop guidelines about network security that apply in the workplace of every state and territory law enforcement agency and every Commonwealth security and law enforcement agency designated as such under the interception act. The nature of these types of agencies means that what is appropriate conduct is a matter for each agency to decide internally with its employees.

It may be that in certain agencies the nature of the work and the legal framework within which that work is conducted mean that the personal use beyond an agreed type does pose a risk to the community. The purpose of the provisions, as set out in the government’s bill, is consistent with their precursors—sections 5, 5F and 5G—which were introduced to ensure that workers in security or law enforcement agencies complied with their agency’s professional standards, including with standards that prohibited law enforcement officers from using work networks to access pornography. The government’s bill gives workers greater protection than those provisions by limiting the communication or use of network protection information for disciplinary purposes to a communication or use that does not contravene another Commonwealth, state or territory law. That is probably the best way of putting the position that the government are not minded to support the amendment. We think in practical terms the bill as it stands will achieve a much better outcome.