Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

To my mind, the Attorney just described proposed subsection (6) as an anti-avoidance measure. I understand why you are reading the context of proposed subsection (1), because it identifies the primary obligation of the service provider. Again, to avoid any ambiguity, proposed subsection (6) says that, if you are not creating this, then you are going to have to. Maybe we are just dancing around terminology here. Minister, when you talk about inconsistencies or varying practices within the industry, what you are really telling us is that some providers—potentially smaller ones—are going to be forced to keep material they presently do not in order to create the standardised obligation. I do not think there is any way of avoiding that conclusion, which was why I guess some people find the member for Wentworth's sweeping statements that carriers will not be forced to catch and store stuff that they presently do not somewhat irritating. It is simply not accurate. If you force standardisation across the industry, you will force individual players to do things and store things that they do not presently do. The reading of the bill is actually fairly clear in that regard. That process of standardisation and levelling-ups, that everybody is treating the same kinds of information in the same way, will force some carriers to create categories of material that they presently do not. I do not propose to detain us too much longer, because I think the reading of the bill is actually fairly clear.