Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise regarding these two pieces of legislation: the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018 and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017. I note that I will support the amendments proposed by the Greens and the crossbench. Unless the Senate is provided with further review of the legislation, I will be voting against these bills. I'm not opposed to checks on foreign influence on our politics or to steps to address espionage in the digital era, but the Senate deserves the time the major parties gave themselves to determine whether these measures are genuinely in the public and national interests. The threat of foreign interference is real and we must take it seriously, but we must be careful to balance the need to defend ourselves with the need to protect our fundamental freedoms, beliefs and civil liberties. Overreach is a real risk when considering these matters. For these reasons, I am disappointed that both the government and the opposition have voted together not to give the Senate more time to consider these bills and reviews.

There were 280 amendments to these bills put forward by the government in only the last days, and most of the 126 amendments proposed to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill flow from the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which was released only on Monday. Furthermore, the committee itself is a closed shop, only open to government and opposition representatives, not Independents like myself. I think it would have been entirely reasonable for these bills to have been referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and to have also been considered separately, as was requested yesterday and today. So I cannot in good conscience vote for the bills and amendments that I have not had time to fully understand, particularly when there are freedom of speech and civil liberties issues at stake.

As constitutional law expert George Williams has noted, this law would undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press—key rights in any functioning and healthy democracy. The definitions in these bills of critical concepts, notably and especially 'national security', are too broad and too uncertain, and so too are the secrecy offences. They go too far in criminalising the receiving and possessing of information, not just disclosure. It's a chilling warning for whistleblowers seeking to shine a light on malpractice and corruption. As drafted, the legislation could still ensnare journalists who are doing nothing more than what is regarded as entirely legitimate scrutiny throughout the life of the Commonwealth. Equally, not-for-profit organisations could still find themselves ensnared and punished merely for doing the work they have engaged in for decades in the public interest. So we should not, and certainly not without far greater scrutiny by this House of review, undertake such wholesale changes to our security and espionage laws which could further erode freedom of the press, criminalise dissent and undermine democratic safeguards.