Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

So you have again invoked the notion of proportionality, which of course is intrinsic to the way international law applies in terms of the analysis of domestic law like this. What do you say then to the fact that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights states that the committee considers that the response that you provided to that committee in response to requests for information that was made about this very issue of proportionality has not established that these kinds of minor crimes warrant the extent and degree of interference with the right to privacy that the scheme imposes.

The report goes on to say:

That is, they do not appear to be sufficiently serious to justify such an interference as being proportionate to the stated legitimate objective of the scheme. Indeed while the response focuses on the need for mandatory data retention—

and that is the new aspect to the bill, of course—

in relation to complex investigations, serious crime and national security, access to retained data under the scheme will not be restricted to such investigations.

Attorney-General, if that is the legitimate objective for which this bill is being proposed, why is it that you will not agree to have those proportional limitations actually enacted by way of the amendment that is being proposed here?