Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The opposition has sought—both during this government and during the terms of the previous Rudd and Gillard governments—to have bipartisan support on national security. There could not be stronger supporters of that general attitude than the members for Gellibrand and Holt and myself. Support from members of the opposition for this motion is clear. Support for the views of the member for Holt—and agreement with the overall perspective put by the member for Berowra about what a great country Australia is—is also implicit in our attitudes.

To give some context to this motion: the opposition has worked hard to improve and ultimately supported two tranches of national security legislation that the parliament has debated over the last 12 months and, more recently, the metadata legislation. There were valid privacy concerns with that legislation but, under the leadership of Bill Shorten and Mark Dreyfus, the opposition took the view—which is unfashionable with some—that the legislation was important and that it was needed. After all, police and other agencies already routinely access metadata. The Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, said that between July and September last year, metadata was used in 92 per cent of counter-terrorism investigations, 87 per cent of child protection investigations, and 79 per cent of serious organised crime investigations. So far, this access has been unaccountable: not balanced by privacy considerations, not properly supervised by parliament, and not monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Now—because we have passed this legislation together—this is all regularised. The dimensions of this problem were very clearly outlined by the member for Braddon in his remarks as to the number of people who were and are involved.

I think this parliament, with its support for expenditure by the national security agencies and with its legislation, is working cooperatively to protect the safety of the Australian people. That is clearly, as both the member for Holt and the member for Berowra said, the greatest responsibility of Australian parliamentarians. The parliament needs to find the right balance between security and protection of privacy rights of individuals. Labor insisted that the original draft of the metadata legislation be sent back to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I suspect that the government will agree that these proposals on dual citizenship be sent back to that committee, which has done a great job in sending back to parliament its recommendations on these important matters.

One point I would like to correct is in relation to the figures on expenditure on non-defence national security by activity in billions of dollars. They clearly show that between the years 2005 and 2007 and after, when Labor was elected, expenditure went up and has been maintained at a very high level in constant dollars. The claim that we are not interested in this issue is clearly wrong, as seen both by our actions in legislation and by expenditure. Through the intelligence committee, Labor fought for improved oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and by the Ombudsman, and for sunset clauses. We successfully argued for the enforcement of strict standards of data security, including the requirement of stored data to be encrypted, and a system of mandatory notifications of data breaches or privacy alerts. We also insisted that a public interest advocate protect journalists, based on a similar system already in place in Victoria.

Labor's view is that finding the right balance between security and freedom is an ongoing task. The government needs to respond to national security risks in a flexible manner, taking new measures, as the member for Braddon advocates. That is why Labor established an office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Initially the current government, through the member for Kooyong, took a rather ideological view about red tape on this. Fortunately, the kind of IPA, ideological zealotry that constantly downgrades safety of Australians was not adopted by the government. I am thankful that they woke up, listened and reinstated this particular position.

The process shows, both in legislation and expenditure, the importance of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in fighting for reforms. We are Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We are loyal to all Australians. We can expect in the next few weeks and months that Labor will continue its responsible attitude towards national security.

See this speech in context