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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (36), (37), (38), (39) on sheet 7669 together, as these amendments are all relevant to the same clauses:

(36) Schedule 2, items 3 and 4, page 56 (line 12) to page 62 (line 4), to be opposed.

(37) Schedule 2, item 6, page 63 (lines 6 to 10), omit the item, substitute:

6 Subsection 5(1) (definition of criminal law -enforcement agency )

  Omit "paragraphs (a) to (k)", substitute "paragraphs (a) to (l)".

(38) Schedule 2, item 7, page 63 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

7 Subsection 5(1) (definition of enforcement agency )

  Repeal the definition, substitute:

  enforcement agency means:

  (a) the Australian Federal Police; or

  (b) a Police Force of a State; or

  (c) the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity; or

  (d) the ACC; or

(e) the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; or

  (f) the Crime Commission; or

  (g) the Independent Commission Against Corruption; or

  (h) the Police Integrity Commission; or

  (i) the IBAC; or

  (j) the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland; or

  (k) the Corruption and Crime Commission; or

  (l) the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption; or

  (m) a body or organisation responsible to the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management-Police; or

  (n) the CrimTrac Agency; or

  (o) any body whose functions include:

     (i) administering a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or

     (ii) administering a law relating to the protection of the public revenue.

(39) Schedule 2, item 8, page 63 (lines 14 to 24), to be opposed.

As to these amendments, we covered—whether it was last night or the night before, I now cannot remember; it has all started to run together—the issue of the government being able to effectively move the goalposts in terms of categories of data that could be added to the scope of the bill once it is enacted, the number of service providers and companies who could be brought within the scope of the bill and, the third issue, the fact that Attorney-General can unilaterally add agencies to the bill.

The Attorney-General has made much—and I acknowledge the significant change and a significant improvement in the regime that prevails in Australia to date—of narrowing roughly 80 agencies, to use the rule of thumb figure. In theory, it could be much larger than that, because there are in excess of 500 local government authorities in this country. They can, in theory at least, acquire metadata on a warrantless basis by just directly contacting the phone and internet companies. This bill narrows the range of agencies to just under two dozen. But, of course, the door as it closes on one side opens on another: the Attorney-General has allowed himself to unilaterally add agencies back into the bill. We are going back to some of the arguments that we had earlier about this strange 40 sitting day lag that appears where the minister can add an agency; 40 sitting days can pass, which will be six or eight months down the track; and then the parliament is asked to ratify the decision.

Maybe before we go to the substance of the amendments, because what we are proposing to do is remove that power so that if another agency is to come back into the scheme and be able to access people's metadata on a warrantless basis, we believe that is something that the parliament should be engaged in at the beginning of the process and not the end. Just before I put the amendments, what I would like to do is seek your advice, Attorney-General, on what criteria you will bear in mind when agencies come knocking on your door seeking to be included back into the scheme.

That is because, as you have identified earlier in the debate, some—when you read the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act annual reports—agencies like Centrelink and a number of others that have no criminal law enforcement role are among the largest users of these authorisations. I want to know what criteria will guide you when Centrelink, if we take them as an example, come knocking at your door—if they are not already there—seeking to be reincorporated within the scheme.