Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

I would say in respect of the remarks that have been made by the member for Melbourne that this set of amendments directly and faithfully gives effect to the 38 substantive recommendations made by the intelligence committee. One of the concerns that I have had throughout the debate about this proposed data retention scheme is the number of misconceptions and myths that have been put about about both the legislation and what might be involved, even after a lengthy report of the intelligence committee was delivered on 27 February.

The member for Melbourne and anyone else anywhere in Australia who is interested in this topic has had almost three weeks to read that very lengthy report of the intelligence committee. I am assuming that it is not intentional, but the comments of the member for Melbourne might have left the impression in respect of the two topics that he has chosen to ask questions about—restrictions on where the data is to be kept and the destruction of retained data—that in some way the amendments that have been brought before the House do not give effect to recommendations of the intelligence committee. The fact of the matter is that the intelligence committee did not make a recommendation in respect of restricting where the data be kept. It did in the body of the report discuss the issues raised, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks. Those issues are a real concern expressed by members and expressed publicly by this side of the House, by Labor, that retained data should be stored in Australia. Certainly, the intelligence committee accepted that there is an ongoing process called the telecommunications sector security reform, which is going to deal with not only that question of where retained data should be kept but a whole range of other questions to do with telecommunications sector security.

On the question of the destruction of retained data, there is detailed consideration in the intelligence committee's report of the existing provisions of the Privacy Act which have been part of Australian law for many years that require private companies that are keeping personal information of Australians to keep that information for no longer than they require it for the business purpose for which they have collected it, and the same obligation applies to government—that government is not to keep personal information of Australians for longer than it is needed for the purpose for which it was collected—and at the end of that period it is to be destroyed or all personal identifiers removed from it.

I make those points because I would not want it thought that, in respect of either of the matters that the member for Melbourne has chosen to ask questions about, the government's amendments have not dealt in any way with the recommendations in the committee's report. Indeed, both those matters are going to be dealt with and kept very much under review and carefully attended to by Labor. Thank you.

See this speech in context