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

Senator Leyonhjelm, can I correct you. It is not 340,000 warrants; it is 340,000 access authorisations. Let me explain to you how this works. Senator Leyonhjelm, you have been in this chamber for almost a year now. Senator Ludlam has been in the chamber for six years. I have never heard from you, Senator Leyonhjelm, and certainly not from Senator Ludlam an argument that the existing provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act are bad. But the authorisation for access to information or documents is contained in a provision of that act. It is in section 178. I understand that section 178 is an original provision of that act. It has been part of the act since 1979.

We discussed last night section 180F, which falls within the same part of the T(IA) Act. It requires, among other things, privacy considerations to be considered before an access application is made. I want to direct you in particular to section 186, which is the statutory basis of the obligation for there to be a public report on the number of access authorisations made in any given year. The most recent annual report which I have is for 2012-13. At page 47 and following of that report it tabulates the number of authorisations that were made in that year. I think that is where your figure of 340,000 probably comes from.

My point to you, Senator Leyonhjelm, is that it is not as if this is uncontrolled. The fact that there is a public reporting obligation for access applications should demonstrate to you that there is already a level of accountability, as there is through the various parliamentary and executive oversight mechanisms that are already in place. So we are not talking about 340,000 warrants; we are talking about 340,000 access applications which are the subject, transparently, of a public report each year.

I entirely share your sentiments about the need to be vigilant, Senator Leyonhjelm, against intrusions by the state. But that noble sentiment of yours has to be put in the context of what the agencies are asking to do. They are not asking for content. They are not asking for a winding back, degradation or attenuation of the existing warrant regime. The existing warrant regime, which does require a warrant if content is to be sought, remains as it is. The only effect of this bill that is relevant to your argument is to reduce from 85 to 21 the number of agencies that can make access applications.