David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. The bill purports to improve national security at the cost of more government control over private telecommunications companies. The bill will introduce a new regulatory framework, supposedly to better manage national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference to Australia's telecommunications networks and facilities.

Specifically, the bill imposes a new security obligation on telecommunication carriers, carriage service providers and intermediaries. They will now be obliged to do their best to manage the risk of unauthorised access and interference, even where such access or interference does not involve committing an offence. They will also have to notify the government of planned changes to their networks and services that could risk unauthorised access and interference, even where the changes do not increase the risk of offences being committed. Of course, they will have to give information to government so compliance with these obligations can be monitored. In fairness, the directions power is limited to instances where ASIO has given an adverse security assessment and the Attorney-General is satisfied that using the power is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce a risk to security. Consideration will supposedly be given to the costs and impacts on competition and consumers. However, fundamentally, the greatest weight is required to be given to the ASIO security assessment.

The net effect of this bill is that consumers will get worse service at a higher cost. This is because this bill will (1) increase compliance costs on industry; (2) restrict competition, as only big established companies would put up with the red tape; and (3) distort investment away from what consumers want, as bureaucrats will make directions without knowing the trade-offs between security, cost and other features for each option and without knowing or caring what sort of trade-off consumers prefer. Government can secure its own data just by choosing ICT businesses that offer gold-standard security. With respect to private data, the government, arguably, has a role to prevent crimes—like hacking into a bank—that could hurt more than those directly involved. But the current law covers this, and there is no case to go further.

What there is no doubt about is that this bill increases regulation and costs to telecommunication service providers to the detriment of consumers and to the dubious benefit of central government. It gives ASIO additional telecommunication oversight powers and obliges telecommunication service providers to both maintain enhanced security and report breaches. Is this a vital piece of legislation to enhance our national security? The Liberal Democrats don't think so.

In a free society, intrusions into individual privacy in the interests of national security and law enforcement are based on probable cause. However, more and more we see measures taken by governments which curtail the freedom of all in an effort to monitor and prevent unlawful efforts by a tiny few. Logically, in doing this both Liberal and Labor seem increasingly to think that everyone is equally likely to be a threat. If this were true, then the fundamental basis of a democratic liberal society is called into question, and the first ideological step has been taken towards creating a police state.

We believe the current laws, effectively policed, provide more than enough powers. I will consequently be opposing this bill.