Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 190, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

It has been brought to my attention that yesterday, during a press conference with the shadow Attorney-General and others, the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Keneally, made two false accusations, which I would like to directly address and refute. The issue relates to commitments I made on behalf of the government in the Senate about 12 months ago during the consideration of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018. I delivered on those commitments made to the Senate to the letter and in full, yet Senator Keneally yesterday, and other Labor members and senators in similar terms in recent weeks, falsely asserted that I did not deliver on those commitments. I pride myself on delivering on my commitments, so I will address the false accusations made in turn.

This is specifically what Senator Keneally said yesterday: 'The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Mathias Cormann, stood on the floor of the Senate and gave an assurance that the government would pass those very amendments when the parliament resumed in February.' Senator Keneally has asserted here that I give an assurance that the government would pass further amendments to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 when the parliament resumed in February. This is false. The Hansard clearly and accurately shows that what I actually committed to do on 6 December 2018 on that point was:

… that the government has agreed to facilitate consideration of these amendments in the New Year in government business time.

The government did facilitate consideration of these amendments in the new year in government business time—namely, on 13 February 2019 the government introduced the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 into the Senate. During the debate on that bill on 14 February 2019, the opposition moved the various amendments to the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 that it wanted to move. Those amendments were duly considered by the Senate during government business time, 100 per cent as promised.

This takes me to Senator Keneally's second false assertion, when she said: 'Those amendments—the government has refused now for 12 months to bring them back to the parliament. In the meantime, in the intervening months, the government, in order to avoid having any amendments put forward, have instituted a series of reviews.' This is also false and misleading. Firstly, at the instigation of the Labor Party, the government on 6 December last year agreed to a second reading amendment to ensure the PJCIS 'conduct a review of the operation of the amendments made by this bill and report on that review by 3 April 2019'. The government agreed to this in good faith at the request of the Labor Party and so did the Senate. In its April 2019 report, the PJCIS made a bipartisan request for further time—

Senator Keneally interjecting—

Senator Keneally doesn't understand the importance of bipartisanship inside the PJCIS. In its April 2019 report, the PJCIS made a bipartisan request for 'further time for the PJCIS to complete its third review of the legislation'. Again, the government acted entirely in good faith by acting on the bipartisan request from the PJCIS—that is, the second review was a result of a Senate vote sought by Labor and supported by the government; the further reviews are as a result of a bipartisan request by the PJCIS for an extension or are required by law, in the case of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review. It is important to understand the time line.

In passing the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 last year, the Senate agreed to refer the amendments to be made by this bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in order to conduct a review of the operation of the amendments made by this bill and report on that review by 3 April 2019. Separately, on 27 March 2019, the PJCIS referred the act to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor for review and report by 1 March 2020. That's the PJCIS, which includes the Labor Party. The PJCIS advised that it would consider any findings or recommendations in its own review of the act. That is why on 3 April 2019 the PJCIS made further recommendations following the second review of the assistance and access act. These recommendations related to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review, resourcing for oversight bodies and requesting further time for the PJCIS to complete its third review of the legislation.

On 9 April the chair of the PJCIS, Mr Andrew Hastie MP, on behalf of the committee, wrote to the Prime Minister requesting that legislation be introduced to defer the committee's reporting date on the assistance and access act to 30 September 2020 at the request of the PJCIS—a bipartisan request including the Labor Party. On 17 October 2019 the government published its response accepting those recommendations. On the same day, the government introduced the assistance and access amendments review bill, which defers the date for the PJCIS to complete its third review of the legislation until 30 September 2020, as requested by the PJCIS, including the Labor Party. It is important to ensure the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the committee have the time they need to complete comprehensive and thorough examinations of the assistance and access act and its impacts, including time to engage with industry and the public.

Finally, I also said on behalf of the government that we supported in principle all amendments to this bill that are consistent with PJCIS recommendations. That remains our position. When the PJCIS recommendations come forward we will act on them, as we always do.

The reason I put this on the record is that ever since Senator Keneally joined the PJCIS she has sought to politicise what always must be a bipartisan committee acting in our national interest. She has made false and inaccurate accusations and assertions and she has sought to play politics with our national security. Australians should be very concerned about Senator Keneally's constant propensity for political stunts involving our national security. Moreover, this is yet another inappropriate attempt to weaken our national security laws and to somehow create the impression that the government did not follow through on the commitments we made when we followed through on those commitments to the letter, as we always do.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a very short response. I trust that Senator Cormann, since he's been given leave, will give Senator Keneally the courtesy he has been demonstrated.

Leave granted.

I simply want to make two points. The first is that the Leader of the Government in the Senate requested time to respond to how he suggested he'd been misrepresented. He's used that time to get to a personal attack on the motivations of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and that is not appropriate. That is not appropriate. If he's going to use the courtesies of the Senate to do that, he should be upfront about doing so.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

You impugned her motivation. It is a personal attack, and that was not warranted.

The second point I would make is that it is all very well for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to come in here and laud the bipartisanship of the PJCIS. The people who sought to undermine the bipartisanship of the PJCIS were the coalition and, in particular, his mate Peter Dutton, for whom he couldn't count the numbers. So do not come in here and cloak yourselves in bipartisanship when it suits you.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, on a point of order?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make very clear that I was misrepresented by Senator Keneally yesterday, and I made an explanation as to why I was misrepresented.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to rule on this. Standing order 190, for those listening in the chamber, states:

By leave of the Senate, a senator may explain matters of a personal nature, although there is no question before the Senate, but such matters may not be debated.

In my view, Senator Cormann, that contribution got into the realm of debating. Senator Wong, I let you speak to that issue. This particular standing order works on the basis of leave, and therefore I believe it needs to be more strictly adhered to.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, given your ruling, I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

It does seem to suit the government to throw around the word 'bipartisanship' when it suits them and to disregard it when it doesn't. Rest assured, Senator Cormann, I do understand the bipartisan nature of the PJCIS. I understood it when Minister Dutton described the PJCIS as 'just another committee'. I understood it when the government rejected the bipartisan recommendations of the PJCIS when it came to the temporary exclusion orders legislation earlier this year. I understood it when the Labor opposition moved those bipartisan recommendations of the PJCIS in relation to the temporary exclusion orders and government members voted against them, including the government members of the PJCIS who had actually endorsed those recommendations. And I understood the bipartisan nature of the PJCIS when it was last year, in a hurried and harried fashion, asked to curtail its consideration of these encryption laws and asked to deliver a set of recommendations, which it did. I understand and make very clear that you stood here—we all watched you—and said the words, 'I also confirm the government has agreed to facilitate consideration of these amendments in the new year.' You did say that, and what you did there was indicate to everyone that, if we voted for this bill without amendments, if we, the Labor Party, gave up the right to move amendments in that legislation, they would be moved and they would be supported, because the word 'facilitate' indicates that.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct the record!

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the minister's interjection, because this goes to the very point of the secret deal that has been struck today by Senator Lambie and the government. I hope somewhere in this building Senator Lambie is watching and listening to this debate, because the fact that Minister Cormann has had his, quite frankly, feelings hurt and has had to come here into this chamber and argue about whether or not the word 'facilitate' means support or not is exactly the type of loophole that they will rely upon in whatever secret agreement they have struck with Senator Lambie. This is why Senator Lambie should be very worried about whatever the secret deal that she has struck with this government is because, as long as it remains secret, she will struggle to hold them to account and, once it becomes public, it will become clear that they will find ways to wiggle out of the accountability and the commitments that they have made.

I thank the minister for taking the time in the Senate to make these points in this way because all he has managed to do is highlight the sensitivity the government has over the fact that the encryption laws remain unamended. They are and remain the subject of extraordinary concern by the technology sector in this country. They are curtailing jobs and economic growth. The House Judiciary Committee of the US Congress has written to Minister Dutton to express its serious concern that the laws, as they currently stand, do not conform to the CLOUD Act—that is, the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act that would allow our law enforcement agencies to have much quicker access to data overseas to solve crimes. That's what is happening here. Everyone who is listening and watching, make no mistake: that is why we have moved these amendments. Clearly the government feels sensitivity to it, but we will continue, with the support of the tech sector in this country and I hope the support of the crossbench, to pursue these amendments in the new year.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave granted.

Thank you to Senator Cormann for placing that information before the Senate, and thank you to Senator Keneally for her response. I can confirm that the Greens are very predisposed to supporting the amendments that Labor have put forward, but I want to place something on the record about the Labor Party. I mean, fair dinkum, the Labor Party voted for the very legislation that they're now proposing to amend, and they voted for it despite the warnings of the tech sector in Australia. So when Senator Keneally gets up and says she hopes she has the support of the crossbench, that is an effective attempt to rewrite history in relation to these disgraceful amendments that dealt a body blow to the tech sector in this country, and Labor were culpable for supporting them. I believe we would have had the numbers to knock them off in the Senate, had Labor not gone all weak and rolled over and allowed the government to tickle their tummy.