Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move Palmer United Party amendment (1) on sheet 7690:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 43 (after line 28), at the end of Subdivision D, add:

180Y Notification of access by Organisation

Scope

(1) This section applies if:

  (a) a journalist information warrant has been issued in relation to a person under Subdivision B; and

  (b) an authorisation was made, under section 175 or 176, under the warrant.

Notification

(2) If the Director-General of Security is satisfied that the disclosure under the authorisation is no longer required, and is not likely to be required, in connection with the purpose for which the authorisation was made, the Director-General must, as soon as practicable, notify the person:

  (a) that a journalist information warrant was issued in relation to the person; and

  (b) that an authorisation was made under section 175 or 176; and

  (c) whether any information or documents were disclosed in accordance with the authorisation.

180Z Notification of access by enforcement agency

Scope

(1) This section applies if:

  (a) a journalist information warrant has been issued in relation to a person under Subdivision C; and

  (b) an authorisation was made, under section 178, 178A, 179 or 180, under the warrant.

Notification

(2) If the Part 4-1 issuing authority is satisfied that the disclosure is no longer required, and is not likely to be required, in connection with the purpose for which the authorisation was made, the Part 4-1 issuing authority must, as soon as practicable, notify the person:

  (a) that a journalist information warrant was issued in relation to the person; and

  (b) that an authorisation was made under section 178, 178A, 179 or 180; and

  (c) whether any information or documents were disclosed in accordance with the authorisation.

In this public debate about data retention it is a little unfair to the media that they have sometimes been accused of self-interest. The media plays a very important role—as important as politicians—in a democracy. They review our work, they scrutinise our work—just as we are doing today in this chamber. We are reviewing and scrutinising an important bill. My amendment simply introduces one little measure to improve transparency in the implementation of this law. It requires individuals to be given notice after the investigation is closed so that the individual can be made aware that their data was looked at. In my view it should have no impact on investigations at all. In another sense, it does increase transparency and tackle the fear of the unknown. When a journo knows his data has been looked at—probably a year or two since the investigation was under way—he will then realise 'I am here, I am fine, my contacts are fine,' so it tackles the fear of the unknown and I think over time if this legislation is passed and implemented smoothly it may increase the comfort of the general public about their data being looked at.

I think this bill is a good attempt by the government and the opposition to strike a balance between law and order and the requirement to maintain the right to privacy. Again, because technology is improving and changing so rapidly, this bill is merely one step in the direction of catching up with technology changes. We will be reviewing this legislation from time to time and when required we will be making changes accordingly. In that process, as I said, the media and journalists play a very important role in getting feedback from the public to the politicians so they know how the legislation is working and whether we should make further changes. I hope the Senate can accept my amendment.