Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

A troublemaker said to me earlier, 'Brett, you'll enjoy the discussion this afternoon because it is a bit esoteric.' It may seem esoteric but, in fact, as Senator Ludlam said, it is actually fundamental. It goes to fundamental issues about the relationship between the individual and the state and about the quest for individual autonomy versus the impulse for community. One might ask: how important is that? It is absolutely critical. The great British philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin said this: 'These'—that is, the quest for individual autonomy versus the impulse for community—'are the two cardinal ideas that have faced one another and dominated the world since the Renaissance.' So we are not talking about a minor issue. We are talking about the role and the relationship of the individual with the state over the last 500 or 600 years.

If you think that is a bit esoteric, can I just draw on popular culture for a second. I watch TheWest Wing. I hate to say that I am somewhat of a West Wing tragic. Not so long ago, towards the end of The West Wing, Sam told Toby and the President that privacy was going to be the big issue of the next decade. He said: 'In the 1920s and the 1930s it was the role of government. In the 1950s and the 1960s it was civil rights. In the next 20 years it will be about privacy: the internet, cell phones, health records, and who is gay and who is not. Besides, in a country born on the will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?' Of course, he is right. That was said before the rise of Google and Facebook, so that has made the argument even more so. The power of the internet, the use of social media, the technological revolution and the promiscuous exchange of information have all given rise to a fear of a surveillance society.

Senators may have read 1984I did many years ago—and they may have been disturbed by Orwell's dystopian technological vision. I was. In this debate, that is the nightmare—something like that. I am glad that the Greens recognise that the greatest threat to liberty is the government, ultimately. Ultimately it is the state. A long time ago, when I gave my first speech in this place, I quoted the great British historian Paul Johnson, who wrote—and we should never, ever forget this:

The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless.

Let us never, ever forget that. We hope on this side that Labor and the Greens, particularly the Left in Australian politics, appreciate that fact. Ultimately—and I agree with Senator Ludlam and certainly Senator Stephens' eloquent contribution—the tension between an individual's privacy and the security of the state and its citizens is a matter of balance. I think most senators would agree that it is always a matter of balance. Sure, no-one wants a surveillance society. No-one wants a surveillance state. But neither do we want terrorists to act with impunity. None of us wants that. An examination of an individual based on reasonable suspicion is generally fine. If there is reasonable suspicion about an individual then I think even Senator Ludlam would say : 'That's okay. Police can then act.' I think that is fair enough. But, in effect, driftnet fishing for information through the internet and elsewhere is far, far more problematic, because then of course there is the potential for governments to use that to look at people whom they might see as being, let us say, a dissident or undesirable or someone who cannot be trusted or who may be a deviant. So it becomes highly problematic when there is driftnet fishing. If there is reasonable suspicion—sure. But I am not quite convinced of driftnet fishing at all.

We talk about emails. They can be stored. They can be opened. I recognise that. Technology has made that much easier. Yet we would have been outraged 30 or 40 years ago if all our mail—what we now call our 'snail mail'—was opened by the state; stored and then opened. No-one would countenance that. In fact, it is an offence to open Royal mail or Australian mail without a warrant. We would all be outraged if that happened. Yet now some make the suggestion that it is okay because they are just emails, you can store, hold and analyse emails, and that might be okay. Well, I am not so sure. Again, if there is a reasonable suspicion and a warrant then that is different. I understand that. But when it comes to harvesting millions, perhaps even billions, of communications across the globe, storing them, opening them when appropriate, the balance lies with the state to show that that is strictly necessary. It must prove why it needs that information. The individual does not need to prove it. The state must.

On balance, I think it is fair to say that in this nation we have got the laws against terrorism more or less right. I am not saying they are perfect; I am not suggesting that. But I do remember during the Howard government years that Senator Payne was often the chair of the legal and constitutional committee. She did a terrific job, often sparring with ministers and, who knows, potentially the Prime Minister, to come to some balance between the rights of the individual and the state. Let us face it: it is a very, very difficult balance. But I think generally she served our nation proud. I know that Senator Brandis had something to do with that as well. It is a terribly difficult balance. No-one would ever say that it was perfect, but in fact I think she found a better balance than the original legislation had prescribed—so a bouquet to Senator Payne.

The coalition is the principle legatee in this place of liberal democracy. I have always been suspicious—even though I am always generous, as you know, Acting Deputy President Fawcett—of Labor and the Greens on anything to do with the rights of individuals against the state. My friend Senator McLucas has left the chamber but from the time of my first speech, 12 years ago, to now I have often spoken about the failure of the Left in Australian democratic politics in the 20th century to really bring to heel the far Left and communism. The greatest failing of the Left in the 20th century was their romanticism of communism.