Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise and speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022. I am very pleased to reiterate the coalition's support of this bill because it builds on the coalition's strong record of taking steps to improve communications services to better support the safety of Australians and the work of our law enforcement and emergency services agencies.

The background to this bill is well understood. It arose from a recommendation of a New South Wales deputy state coroner to remove the threshold of 'imminent' from rules around authorities accessing location data from telecommunications providers. Accessing this data is important, because authorities can use a clever system called triangulation to locate missing persons, suspects or those who may have met with foul play. The problem has been in getting the timely approval from the telcos while they dealt with whether the threshold of a serious and imminent threat had been met. Removing the 'imminent' threshold, in the view of the coalition, is reasonable, particularly as the request has come from a coroner's court recommendation. The bill adds an important safeguard: the entity or person being asked to disclose the information needs to be satisfied that it is unreasonable or impracticable to obtain the other person's consent to the proposed disclosure or use.

There were concerns about privacy and whether there had been enough engagement with relevant stakeholders, so it was only fair and reasonable for those matters to be fully explored as part of an inquiry by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The committee has now tabled its report and has recommended that the bill be passed. I want to draw from that report and reference the committee's statement that evidence received:

… was overwhelmingly supportive of the bill's intended objective of protecting the lives and wellbeing of Australians.

The report also dealt with the issue of balancing privacy and protection. The committee's view was that the proposed changes 'do not provide new or additional access to information' but were more about 'the timeliness and utility of existing provisions' around accessing the data. It cited evidence by the department that there were well-established protocols and mechanisms at a federal level by a number of oversight bodies to protect the information obtained from the telcos. The report referred to evidence from the Australian Federal Police, who suggested:

… the amendments would be particularly beneficial to vulnerable people, as they would expedite assistance to missing persons at additional risk of harm due to their personal characteristics …

The bill would also require more detailed record keeping by the telecommunications providers.

In reference to industry consultation, we heard that the government carried out what is called a targeted engagement process, but the report stated that the Internet Association of Australia described the process as involving only select industry representatives, which it argued was not good practice. Yes, the government said it consulted with 20 organisations, and these included Commonwealth government departments. But clearly there are industry question marks about whether proper consultation was conducted.

Most of all, it is important that this bill be above politics. I regret to say that the Minister for Communications in the other place could not help herself when she attempted to make some cheap political points in the debate on this bill. In her second reading speech the minister said: 'I regret to advise the parliament that this is not the first time that this issue has been raised', referring to a coroner's case dating back to 2020. But I want to advise the Senate that, despite the minister's attempt to make a cheap political point, a departmental briefing that I had when I was the shadow minister for communications confirmed that the government had not received a written request from the coroner in relation to amending the act prior to October 2022. So it's important that we work together as a parliament to be constructive on addressing these issues, but in a way that is above petty politics.

As I said at the start of this speech, the coalition supports this bill, because it builds on our work in office, particularly on this important issue in the communications portfolio. The Senate review report covers this work, and this was referenced in the coalition's additional comments in the report. When in government we were leaders in rolling out advanced mobile location, or AML, technology. The coalition's rollout of AML technology, built into the operating system of Apple and Android telephones, was completed in August 2021. AML provides greater location accuracy to 000 during an emergency call from a mobile telephone, with the objective of saving lives and improving outcomes for mobile callers in Australia. It works by recognising that, when an emergency call is made to 000, AML activates the telephone's location service functions, if not already activated, and also assesses the location information available to calculate the caller's location and automatically sends an SMS with the estimated location to the 000 emergency call service.

In 2017 the coalition announced that it would issue a request for tender to deliver the next-generation 000 emergency call service with integrated location based data services, including AML technology. In 2018 the coalition noted discussions with Telstra to implement a new internet protocol platform to facilitate next-generation 000 capabilities as well as AML to provide more-accurate location information by automatically sending location coordinates to 000. In 2020 the coalition announced that AML technology was available for Australians calling 000 on mobile phones. And on 25 August 2021 the coalition announced the completion of the rollout of AML technology for the 000 emergency call service.

These are really important developments under the former coalition government, and of course they build on the many achievements of the former coalition government in the communications portfolio. These include funding more than 1,200 mobile base stations and delivering record investment to support regional connectivity and improved telecommunications infrastructure for disaster resilience, particularly under circumstances in which previous governments—the Rudd-Gillard governments—had not invested any money at all in mobile base stations. So, it is a very proud legacy of this government.

We also rolled out the NBN to 99 per cent of all Australians, including upgrading the network so that 75 per cent of premises will receive ultrafast speeds by the end of 2023. It is with a great deal of pride that Labor, with its former policy of rolling out the NBN to every premises in the cities, not in any country areas or any town with fewer than a thousand people, which were always going to get fixed wireless or satellite connection, has now adopted the coalition's NBN rollout methodology and is building on that very significant work.

We also established the world's first eSafety Commissioner, including delivering the online safety act, which extends important online safety protections to adults. We held the global digital platforms to account, including under the news media bargaining code, and we passed a wide range of new regulations to combat telephone and SMS scams. It was very significant work.

I do note with regret that we have seen very little action from this government on combating scams, with is costing Australians, as the ACCC has made clear, several billion dollars per year—potentially up to $4 billion per year. We have seen no action from this government on combating scams on the over-the-top platforms such as WhatsApp. Australians would be aware of scams like the 'Hey, Mum' scam on WhatsApp, and it is astonishing to me that we have seen so little action from this government on an issue which is impacting so many Australians. Nearly every Australian has a digital device of some kind, and combating scams is incredibly important. I say to the government again that the government must get a hurry on with this very important issue.

In conclusion, we very much trust that this amendment bill will give the police and emergency services greater support in responding to future emergencies. We are, as I have reiterated, very happy to support the request from the New South Wales deputy coroner made in 2022, and we commend this bill to the Senate.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022. This bill is about trying to save Australian lives, so it is of the utmost importance to the Albanese Labor government. The intent of the bill is to improve the operations and transparencies of the relationship between law enforcement agencies and telecommunication companies.

For the smooth operations of daily life, the relationship between telecommunication organisations, the public and law enforcement is particularly important. It needs to be a solid and well-functioning relationship. Disclosure of telecommunications data to save a life or a missing person has too high a threshold to reach, and it's arguable that it has previously cost Australian lives. Therefore, the bill before us responds directly to these recommendations to better protect the safety and wellbeing of Australians who may find themselves in dangerous and life-threatening circumstances.

The bill increases accountability and transparency through enhanced recordkeeping and requirements for disclosure. That's a key difference between this Albanese Labor government and previous Liberal-National governments. Currently, law enforcement is unduly obstructed in locating missing persons, because telecommunication companies can only help determine the location of a person if there is a perceived threat to a person's life or health that is serious and imminent. Therefore, the bill before us removes the requirement that the threat be imminent. This will allow greater flexibility in cases of life and death or missing persons—a reasonable and just change under the law.

Further, in the interests of public safety, the bill enhances emergency disclosures from the Integrated Public Number Database, known as the IPND, a database of all Australian phone numbers and associated names and addresses. Currently, the IPND manager is prohibited from disclosing the associated name and address to emergency call persons if the number calling triple 0 is unlisted, even when that information is necessary to providing someone with life-saving emergency services. The bill amends the act so that the IPND manager can disclose information about a subscriber to the triple 0 emergency call person in connection with a call to triple 0. This will provide emergency services personnel with greater flexibility to locate individuals in need of emergency assistance.

As part of the National Emergency Declaration Act 2022, these provisions were broadened to allow telecommunications companies to provide reasonable and necessary assistance to emergency service organisations. However, that act unintentionally did not include protections for telecommunications companies acting in good faith from liability or damages. This bill corrects that error.

Following recommendations from the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the bill improves the record-keeping requirements on the telecommunications industry to include more details about the authorisation of disclosures under the act. Major telecommunications providers and the Communications Alliance have been consulted on the bill, with amendments made in response to their requests.

These proposed amendments are good for our country. The personal safety of Australians has to be paramount. These amendments minimise regulatory impact and provide benefit to industry, law enforcement agencies and emergency service organisations. I firmly believe that this bill from the Albanese Labor government will save lives.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, on behalf of the Greens, to indicate that the Greens won't be opposing the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022, and I note the work of my colleague Senator Hanson-Young both on the committee and on the substantive work in relation to this bill.

The Greens have longstanding concerns about the history, within a variety of law enforcement agencies, of noncompliance with key reporting and record-keeping requirements with regard to telecommunications intercepts and other secretly obtained information. That includes repeated failure to properly store and properly protect, or to destroy, as required under legislation, sensitive data. Whilst we accept that with this bill there is an intention to use these powers in strictly limited circumstances—those relating to serious threats to life—there is the possibility of the powers being used for broader law enforcement measures, and that will require real and ongoing oversight to prevent mission creep.

I've read the report from the deputy coroner and I understand the circumstances that led to that recommendation. Implementing that recommendation is a public good. Hopefully, this will give a power to the AFP and state police to, where there is a serious threat to life, find somebody and help them. I think we are all on board with that as the overall objective in this bill, and those of us who have read the deputy coroner's report understand the rationale behind it.

That being said, this parliament has previously passed laws that have put in place constrained powers for telecommunications intercepts, and clear reporting measures, and the AFP and state and territory police have routinely ignored those legislative bounds. They have routinely breached privacy laws and routinely breached the laws of this parliament and the restrictions they have. This isn't simply my assertion. I say this having read repeated reports from the Ombudsman, who has an obligation to oversight telecommunications intercepts. The Ombudsman, in a series of reports, has found that the AFP, amongst other law enforcement agencies—including, as I said, state and territory police—repeatedly break data protection laws, including by wrongly accessing personal communications data and failing to properly store, protect or destroy it. Those breaches are reported year in and year out by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's reports have also found, repeatedly, that police across the country aren't even aware of their legal obligations for data collection, of the steps they have to undertake when they make the requests or of the key provisions that you'd think would ring warning bells with them, like recordkeeping for journalists' information warrants. The Department of Home Affairs has been woefully inadequate here, because it has provided no materials or guidelines for authorised officers when making requests. And this hasn't been in just one Ombudsman's report; this has been in Ombudsman's report after Ombudsman's report, going back years.

So, yes, when we read this legislation we can see that there are checks and balances in it. But, whatever we put in the legislation, the Green's fear is that the people who are meant to enforce the law will just ignore it—particularly the Australian Federal Police. Whatever we put in the law they will just ignore and use the powers regardless. And we have that fear because that's what they have done repeatedly in the past. Given the evidence that police and other agencies routinely break the existing laws to protect our private data, we have a very real concern about how they will use these laws going forward, so we will keep a close watching brief on how these laws will be used going forward. There is a serious lack of transparency in this country in how police gather and manage people's data, and we will examine how these laws are operating closely and critically to ensure that further infringement on people's privacy—unlawful infringement by law enforcement agencies, particularly at a time of unprecedented cyberattacks and other attacks on our personal data—will not be part of the landscape.

I'm sure we've all been concerned about how our private data is being accessed unlawfully through cyberattacks by unlawful operators, criminal gangs and people who want to use our data for their own financial advantage or to blackmail corporations or governments. But we should be even more concerned when our law enforcement agencies are accessing our data and breaching our privacy unlawfully. Tragically, they have a real documented and repeated record of doing that.

Yes, let's pass these laws and let's put the protections in place. It's right to put these protections in place, but let's not pretend that by passing the laws the police will comply with them. They probably won't. We should commit collectively to holding the police and other law enforcement agencies to account for the laws that this place passes.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators who have contributed to this debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022. I also thank the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for its detailed report on the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.