David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Chairman, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Deputy President of the Senate. I would also indicate the government's opposition to Greens' amendment (4). The government does not support this amendment and I would make a few points with regard to that.

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 was amended in 2010 to provide a definition of foreign intelligence that is consistent with the Intelligence Services Act. Earlier in the debate, Senator Ludlum indicated that his amendment would remove any inconsistencies and certainly would not give rise to any new inconsistencies. Unfortunately, it is the government's view that this is not the case. While the government's bill ensures that there is consistency with the Intelligence Services Act, the act that governs the collection of foreign intelligence by other agencies, Senator Ludlum's amendment would introduce a further inconsistency between these acts.

Further, the amendment of 2010 was particularly important for ensuring that Australia's national security agencies were able to obtain interception warrants, to gain intelligence necessary to protect our national interests, not just from traditional sources but from challenges posed by foreign individuals and organisations operating without any government support, whether it be for economic or personal gain.

Repealing this definition would prevent interception warrants being obtained under sections 11A, 11B and 11C of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act in relation to individuals in nonstate or nonpolitical organisations who might be involved in activities such as people smuggling, people trafficking, illegal fishing and weapons proliferation. I simply repeat the point that has been made several times during this debate: the plethora of nonstate actors and the development and evolution of new threats and new technology threats are all things that the government remains keenly concerned about and the legislative framework should reflect that fact.