David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, can you assist me: have we formally moved Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 7669?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is formally on the table now.

I am speaking in support of it. It is substantively the same as my own amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 7661. The rationale behind these amendments is appropriate. To the extent that data retention is used in law enforcement, the vast bulk of access required—I understand that it is at least 70 per cent—is to data that has been retained for three months or less. Retaining data for three months is also consistent with the commercial practices of some ISPs. Their customers reasonably expect their ISP to retain data in order to determine, for example, how they blew their data allowance and how it was used. When such a request comes from the customer it is reasonable; when the demand comes from the government at the taxpayers' expense I consider it to be unreasonable.

I am intrigued by the extent to which the Attorney relies on the advice of law enforcement agencies in relation to why three months is inadequate and two years is appropriate. I have never yet known a law enforcement agency to suggest that a law is too strict, is too stringent or goes too far. In fact, if you asked them, 'Would you like us all to be microchipped so that we can be tracked on a daily basis?', I doubt you would get too many objections. From the point of view of advice as to the appropriateness of a proposal for strengthening the law and making it harder, I hesitate to suggest that they are a very reliable source of advice. The fact is that their use of the data should be the determining factor, and their use of the data shows that three months is an appropriate period. They rarely use it any longer than that.