David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General update the Senate on the government's response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report into the data retention bill?

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

Thank you very much indeed, Senator Johnston. I acknowledge your work, particularly in the early to middle part of last year as a member of the National Security Committee of cabinet in crafting the government's response to the threat to Australia from terrorism, of which this forms part.

The PJCIS released its report into the data retention bill on Friday. It makes 39 recommendations, the most important of which of course is that the bill be passed. Significantly, the report was bipartisan. Its concluding comments—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you pull the wings off butterflies as well? I bet you do!

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

Senator Carr, I thought you might take this issue seriously, but apparently you are incapable of treating threats to the security of the Australian people seriously.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the chair!

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

The report was bipartisan, notwithstanding the bleatings we hear from Senator Carr. In its concluding comments the committee states that it considered carefully the rationale for a mandatory data retention scheme and that, in the words of the committee:

… such a regime is justified as a necessary, effective and proportionate response.

The committee endorsed key elements of the scheme, including supporting the proposed two-year retention period on the basis that it was necessary and proportionate for a range of investigations into particularly serious types of criminal and security related activity.

The committee's recommendations are largely focused on two areas. First of all, ensuring that the data set and the agencies which can access the data are specified in the primary legislation rather than in the regulations, and in increasing the oversight mechanisms and privacy protections in the bill.

The government has announced that it will support all of the committee's recommendations, and I take this opportunity to thank the chair of the committee, Dan Tehan, and the deputy chair, Anthony Byrne, for their work in achieving a bipartisan agreement on this important measure.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Attorney-General further inform the Senate why a mandatory data retention scheme is necessary?

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

As Senator Johnston knows, metadata is used in a very large number of serious criminal and security related investigations, including murder, sexual assault, child exploitation, organised crime and, of course, counterterrorism. The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Andrew Colvin, recently advised that between July and September 2014 metadata was used in 92 per cent of all counterterrorism investigations.

The bill does not provide any new powers to the agencies. The records kept by service providers have long provided Australia's law enforcement and security agencies with valuable intelligence and evidence. However, service providers are not obliged to retain this data, and changing technologies and business practices have meant that less information is being retained than was hitherto the case, and for shorter periods. This is having a critical impact on the capacity of law enforcement and national security agencies, and the legislation addresses that gap. (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the Attorney-General inform the Senate whether any Australian investigations have been impacted by a lack of retained metadata?

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

Yes, Senator Johnston, I can. Unfortunately, there are many investigations, both in Australia and overseas, that are either limited or in fact cannot proceed due to a lack of retained data.

To give you just one example, Senator Johnston, in June of last year the AFP received information from Interpol about a suspect who had made a statement online that they intended to sexually assault a baby. Interpol provided IP address details belonging to an Australian carrier. As the Australian carrier only retained data for a maximum of seven days, no results were available and the suspect was unable to be identified. No government can stand by and allow such degradation of investigative capabilities to continue. I look forward to the Senate joining me in coming days in passing this important bill.