Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Now, Senator Ludlam referred a matter that is before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on telephone interception, where we have dealt with metadata in some detail. As I recall, we have deferred the filing of the report until early next year.

Senator Ludlam just said that the keeping of this information would allow Big Brother, whoever is looking, to look at your bank details and what you are saying to people. I stand to be corrected—and, as I said, I did not take part in that human rights committee inquiry—but my understanding, including from briefings I have received, is that metadata will only tell whoever is watching you, like Big Brother in 1984, the time of the activity, where a message went and other basic information but not what you said or what you are watching or what your bank details are. Anyone listening to Senator Ludlam could well think that this proposal is so that Big Brother could look at your bank details, look at what you are looking at or other material. As I said, I stand to be corrected, but I do not think Senator Ludlam reported that correctly.

In fact, my understanding of the legislation being proposed by the government, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill, is for the retention of that pure—if I can call it that—metadata only, which will not allow people to look at your bank account and see how much money you have, or to see what you might have been saying to your mistress or whatever.

This legislation, as I understand it, is essential for the protection of Australians against people who would be terrorists, and other criminal groups; it is an essential tool there. But what is said in the debate about it needs to be accurate. We should not go around telling Australians, 'Big Brother will be able to see your bank account, see who you are writing to, see what you are viewing on the internet.' So I plead with people involved in this very, very serious and sensitive debate that you do not scare Australians with inaccurate suggestions about things which are not likely to happen.

Question agreed to.