George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The government opposes this amendment for a reason that, towards the end of his contribution, Senator Ludlam adverted to: the volume of warrantless requests, as reported in the most recent annual report of the Attorney-General's Department, as Senator Ludlam says, was 340,000. It is not suggested—I do not understand it to be suggested—that those requests were irregular or ought not to have been made. What they tell you is the weight and dependence of the police and the other investigative agencies which have access to metadata under the current arrangements, which are not subject of the regimes provided for by this bill.

Surely, Senator Ludlam and Senator Leyonhjelm, you must see as a matter of common sense that, if that is the demand by the authorities for access to metadata—340,000 a year—there is no practical possibility, none, that a warranted regime could work. None. The sheer volume of the need of the authorities to access metadata precludes the procedure for warrants.

Now, Senator Ludlam, you have never had the obligation, as I do, to issue warrants. I have to issue warrants from time to time under the T(IA) Act and under the ASIO Act. Under those acts, the decision maker is required to be satisfied of certain matters, so the authorities seeking the warrant place a volume of material before me which I consider carefully and, on the basis of that consideration, I make my decision about whether or not to issue the warrant. It is a quasi-judicial act, and it takes quite a period of time. The practical impossibility of that process being undertaken carefully where there are, in the last reporting year, 340,000 access requests should be obvious to you.

Contrary to what you say, Senator Ludlam, it is not uniformly the practice in Europe to require a warrant.