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

May I close the second reading debate by thanking honourable senators for their contributions. Let me start with Senator McAllister.

Might I acknowledge and thank the opposition for its support for this bill, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. Like all of the tranches of national-security-related legislation that I have introduced into this chamber, this bill has been the subject of extensive consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS has recommended a number of amendments, which the government has agreed to, and I want to thank the opposition both for its support for the bill and for its contribution to the deliberative process through the PJCIS.

Speaking of which, can I also thank Senator Fawcett, who is a member of the PJCIS, for his characteristically thoughtful and well-informed contribution. I also want to acknowledge and thank Senator Xenophon for his thoughtful contribution and his support for the bill.

Senator Leyonhjelm, who has just spoken, has indicated that, effectively on libertarian grounds, he will oppose the bill. This is a position, as we know, that Senator Leyonhjelm characteristically takes. I am glad that on legislation of this kind, where government and opposition—the alternative parties of government in this place—agree that we have a contradictor; that we hear the other side of the argument from a libertarian point of view. If I may say so, there is always a crystalline elegance about Senator Leyonhjelm's contributions to this debate. He is very much a purist. But can I say to you, Senator Leyonhjelm, that in the government's view your concerns on a libertarian basis are misplaced. Your warnings about the creation of a police state are vastly wrongheaded, with respect. And, might I point out, Senator Leyonhjelm, that, if not always, then typically, you have opposed the government's national security legislation reforms.

And, might I point out to you, with respect, Senator Leyonhjelm—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that when on Thursday of the week before last the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Deputy Commissioner Phelan, announced the charging of two people following an alleged attempt to bring down an aircraft in consequence of a plot, which it will be alleged was being conducted on Australian soil, Deputy Commissioner Phelan, who runs the counterterrorism operation, went out of his way to point out that it was because of powers given to the Australian Federal Police by this parliament in the eight tranches of national security legislation which have been introduced by this government over the last three years that the AFP was able to make those arrests and conduct that investigation so successfully, thus saving potentially hundreds and hundreds of lives.

I am not making a debating point, Senator Leyonhjelm; that was the view of the operational officer in charge of Australia's counterterrorism efforts. But it does, I think, make the point that, on occasions and only where there is a clear need to do so, it is sometimes necessary to give the police additional power in order to protect public safety. We have the endorsement of Deputy Commissioner Phelan that that has been the very effect of some of the laws that this Senate has passed after deliberation, including the contributions which you have made.

I can't say that Senator McKim's contribution had the same crystalline elegance as yours, Senator Leyonhjelm. It was a confused contribution because, with respect, Senator McKim confused the bill. He said that this was about mass government surveillance. It has absolutely nothing to do with mass government surveillance whatsoever. As a matter of fact, what this bill is to do with is protecting systems.

Senator McKim interjecting—

I think, Senator McKim—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—you are thinking of another bill. It's always good counsel, if you participate in these debates, to work out which bill you're talking about.

Nevertheless, let me—having responded to those who contributed—make some closing remarks. I've already thanked the PJCIS for its contribution to the process. May I repeat that since 2014 this government, first under the leadership of Mr Abbott and now under the leadership of Mr Turnbull, has led the most significant program of national security legislation reform in a generation. The bill currently before the chamber is the ninth tranche of significant national security legislation which this government has introduced—which I have introduced—in the past three years.

The bill is a critically important piece of national security legislation, because telecommunications networks form part of Australia's critical infrastructure and also support other critical sectors such as health, finance, transport, water and power. Cyberthreats to Australia are persistent, whether they arise from sabotage, espionage, serious and organised crime or other technology enabled crime. The existing framework for managing these risks in the telecommunications industry is inadequate, and I think that fact is widely acknowledged. It relies on voluntary cooperation and goodwill, which is not always sufficient given the nature of the risks to national security and the gravity of those risks.

So this bill will address that shortcoming in the protection of the telecommunications system at the moment. It will amend the Telecommunications Act to place an obligation on all carriers, carriage service providers and carriage service intermediaries to do their best to protect telecommunications networks and facilities from unauthorised interference and unauthorised access. This obligation will be supported by new notification requirements to encourage early engagement to allow risks to be assessed and mitigated. Carriers and nominated carriage service providers will be required to notify changes to systems and services if a carrier or nominated carriage service provider becomes aware that a proposed change is likely to have a material adverse effect on their ability to meet the security obligation to protect networks and facilities from unauthorised access and interference.

Companies will also be given the opportunity to forecast changes to telecommunications systems in annual security capability plans. In line with the risk based nature of these reforms, the notification regime includes an exemptions process. This will reduce the regulatory burden on some companies and ensure that the resources of security agencies are targeted. The bill also prescribes annual reporting requirements on the operation of the legislation in an effort to improve the transparency of the regime.

Following introduction of the bill on 9 November last year, I referred it to the PJCIS for inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr Andrew Hastie MP. The committee recognised that protecting telecommunications infrastructure requires a joint partnership between government and industry. The recommendations of the committee provide great clarity and certainty for industry, encourage information sharing and enhance the transparency of the regime's operation.

In addition to the committee's inquiries, these reforms have been the subject of extensive industry consultation, beginning as long ago as 2012. Senator Leyonhjelm—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—your observations about the burden to industry overlook the fact that this proposal has been developed collaboratively with industry through very extensive consultations that took into account industry's views. As a result, a number of changes were made to improve the operation of the proposed legislation in response to that feedback, including providing additional safeguards to govern the use of the proposed regulatory powers, clarifying the intended scope and application of requirements to be imposed on telecommunications providers, and other measures. I want to take this opportunity to thank those from industry who contributed so constructively to what has been, on any view, a very thorough consultation process.

In conclusion: the bill will establish a regulatory framework to better manage national security risks of espionage, sabotage and foreign interference and to better protect networks and the confidentiality of information stored on and carried across them from unauthorised interference and access—not surveillance, Senator McKim, but protection. There will be a set of government amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the PJCIS, subject to the committee stage. I commend the bill to the Senate.