Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I get to the substantive part of my speech, I would like to respond to some of what has been put on the record by the Greens. Firstly, I reject the implicit premise of this matter of public importance, which is that effectively we are seeing indiscriminate data collection right now, that somehow we have security agencies out of control. That is the impression that the Greens are trying to create. It is an impression that I reject and I think most right-thinking Australians would reject it. I agree with Senator Stephens and with Senator Fawcett that we have robust systems in place in order to protect Australian citizens and to ensure that, in balancing Australians' right to privacy and to go about their daily business without undue interference from the state, the importance of our intelligence agencies doing their jobs is also recognised. That is the apparatus that has been set up by successive governments and has been refined over time by this parliament.

If the Greens' argument is that somehow that is a broken system, I have not heard them make their case in any substantive way. In fact, what we have heard is just a bunch of conspiracy theories from Senator Di Natale and others. He says we are not getting the balance right and makes all sorts of allegations without evidence. He talks about a conspiracy of silence between the major parties. No, what we have had is cooperation. What we have had over a long period of time, to Australia's credit, is that both sides of politics in the main have worked to ensure that we get the balance right, to ensure that our intelligence agencies can do their jobs. Let us not underestimate how important this work is. This can be the difference between a terrorist attack occurring or not occurring. Good intelligence is critical to the security of our nation and I think the Greens' view of the world seems to be to undermine that at every turn. It is the Greens' view of the world that treats the Edward Snowdens of the world as heroes rather than traitors to their country. I will go to some of the issues in the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report and I will expand on some of what Senator Fawcett had to say on that, and Senator Stephens touched on some of that as well.

We should also put on record that there are a number of laws protecting the privacy of Australians. We have not just the Privacy Act but also the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and the Telecommunications Act. These relate to the collection of data and access to that data. As other senators have noted, we also have oversight. We have the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and we have the joint standing committee. These are the processes that we have put in place: robust legal requirements to ensure that our intelligence agencies can do their jobs.

The report of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which has been mentioned, made 43 recommendations—obviously, there was a range of views—and I want to touch on some of the conclusions of that committee. The committee was asked to apply:

The committee devoted an entire chapter of the report to its analysis on data retention. There was a diversity of views within the committee as to whether there should be a mandatory data retention regime. This is ultimately a decision for government. The committee recommended that the government publish an exposure draft of any legislation and refer it to the committee for examination. The committee recognised that access to telecommunications data is a critical tool that allows Australia's law enforcement and security agencies to investigate serious crime and threats to national security. The committee's report states:

There is no doubt that the enactment of a mandatory data retention regime would be of significant utility to the national security agencies in the performance of their intelligence, counter-terrorism and law enforcement functions.

The report also states:

… the utility of such a regime is not the only consideration. A mandatory data retention regime raises fundamental privacy issues.

This has been acknowledged. The committee correctly noted that reconciling the fundamental public values of public safety and privacy is a decision for government.

The committee provided guidance on how a data retention regime could be implemented by including, among others, the following features:

…

…

…

The committee further recommended that:

If … a mandatory data retention regime should proceed:

The committee made detailed recommendations about the type of safeguards, oversight and accountability mechanisms that should be put in place if the government were to decide to implement a data retention scheme. The committee recommended against any regime which included content data or internet browsing data. It offered specific guidance on the oversight, review and reporting arrangements.

It is fundamentally important to our national security that our intelligence agencies be allowed to do their jobs. There are numerous restrictions and numerous aspects of oversight when they are doing those jobs.