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

I move Australian Greens amendment (4) on sheet 7710:

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 17), after subsection 115A(1), insert:

(1A) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of subsection (1) a virtual private network is not an online location.

I will see if I can improve my luck on this one! This amendment goes to very serious concerns that I have that this bill could be used, and could be interpreted by courts, to prevent the use of VPNs—virtual private networks. It was an issue that was canvassed briefly in some of the contributions to the debate on the second reading. This amendment proposes to clean up this dangerous ambiguity, so that it is at least one thing that we do not have to worry about.

A VPN is a legitimate technical tool with many uses which have nothing to do with copyright infringement. It is used as a security measure and as a way for people to collaborate on a private network across multiple sites. I think Senator Leyonhjelm, in his earlier contribution, identified that when we log on to the Parliament House network from home base or from on the road, using our security token, we are in effect using a virtual private network. They have multiple legitimate uses across industry, government, security agencies—take your pick. You could argue that they also have more niche uses, which are nonetheless valuable and entirely legitimate. For example, a whistleblower could use a VPN to hide their internet address and protect their identity while revealing important information to a journalist. That would be one argument. A VPN may be used by a journalist to prevent their sources from being exposed. It may be used by a systems administrator to test if their company's network is functioning correctly.

Both the communications minister and the shadow Attorney-General have stated that the bill is not intended to capture or block or prevent the use of VPNs. But this is not good enough. Ambiguities have already been introduced—maybe wittingly, maybe unwittingly—by Senator Fierravanti-Wells's contribution before the debate was interrupted for question time. When interpreting whether these things are in or out, the courts must be given certainty as to parliament's intention. The smartest way for us to do that is to make sure that it is in the law. If any loophole is left in the legislation, then it may well be that these clauses are tested by rights-holders trying their luck, and the unintended—or intended—consequences of that would be quite profound.

This is a very simple amendment. It is designed to explicitly remove VPNs from the scope of the bill. I commend it to the chamber.