Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Fawcett for addressing the issue of the parliamentary inquiry that was undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security last year, because that is exactly the perspective that I want to come from today, having served on that committee during the period of that investigation. I recognise that many Australians have a deep and ongoing interest in the issue of covert surveillance and telecommunications interception. I know that it is something that Senator Ludlam has been prosecuting in all the time that he has been here in the Senate. What we need to be really mindful of is that issues like these need to be dealt with through appropriate parliamentary processes. In the Australian parliamentary system the process for dealing with them is through that Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security. I expect that the committee will certainly be receiving a briefing on the issues that have been revealed in the last few weeks.

In terms of the issue before us today, I certainly believe that indiscriminate data collection should be of concern to all Australians. It was absolutely borne out by the number of submissions made to the parliamentary inquiry. It is a double-edged sword, though, for our intelligence agencies. They are under fire if they do their work and we hear about it through a leak, and, if they do not do their work and something happens, the public demands to know why they were not able to prevent it. In reference to the information that was leaked by Edward Snowden in relation to Indonesia, Andrew Porter, a former adviser to former Minister Smith, wrote recently—and he really captured it:

Our intelligence agencies, like our Defence Force, deal with long-lead issues like emerging threats and changing government and economic situations in countries over years and decades. Indonesia is our most important neighbour, and we have an increasingly dynamic relationship with it; it hasn't always been so …

However highly we regard Indonesia's government and its people, for those wondering why we might have such a strong intelligence focus in our near north, it's worth remembering that the overwhelming majority of our compatriots who have fallen victim to the scourge of terror have done so in Indonesia.

So, for all the suggestions about a lack of accountability, in fact, as Senator Fawcett so rightly pointed out, our intelligence agencies are well governed under the Intelligence Services Act. They are subject to the oversight of the independent Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and they report to the parliament's joint standing committee on intelligence as well as to the individual agencies' respective ministers.

It might irk people to be told that privacy is not an absolute right and that a balance must be struck between privacy and other rights, including exactly the issue of the public interest in protecting the safety and security of all Australians. As we know, that is the expectation that the public have of us. That is the double-edged sword. That balancing act is a central tenet to the privacy legislation that exists both here and around the world. Where the state seeks to encroach on the privacy and other civil liberties through the exercise of intrusive powers, every legislation in every state jurisdiction suggests those powers should be exercised for legitimate purposes and not for improper reasons, should only be used when necessarily and not arbitrarily or without reasonable cause, be carried out in a way that is proportionate to their needs and not in a way that is excessively intrusive or to an extent that is overly broad, and should be shown to be effective in achieving their legitimate aims. There is a requirement to demonstrate that the intrusion has actually delivered on its purposes.

Preserving freedom under law is part of what it means to guard the national security of a democracy. To diminish freedoms unnecessarily or to disproportionately do that makes the nation insecure. I totally agree that secret policing, covert searches, surveillance, information that cannot be tested for accuracy, closed decision making and the absence of independent security of government agencies are all hallmarks of a system of government that democratic nations tend to want to secure themselves against, that is what Australia does very effectively.

There is no doubt that national security is in the public interest. However, it is very important that people understand that most security operations, such as searches and interceptions or warrants, are by their very nature invasive. That is why any proposal to consider an extension of those invasions requires such careful scrutiny and deliberation. The evidence to the public inquiry demonstrated how widely applicable data intervention is, preventing, as Senator Fawcett reminded us, several terrorist incidents, breaking up multimillion-dollar serious and organised drug, corporate crime and people-trafficking rackets—the very things that we as Australians want our intelligence agencies to do. That is why the intelligence committee took a cautious approach in its final recommendations, always seeking to balance the issues of national security and privacy. It was a unanimous report that sought to provide common-sense advice for any future government about changes to telecommunications interception, because intrusive powers must always be balanced by appropriate safeguards for the privacy of individuals and the community, recognising that Australia is a democratic nation which values personal freedom and places limits on the power of the state.

In relation to the issue of data retention and metadata, which has had so much interest and coverage, the committee determined:

If the Government is persuaded that a mandatory data retention regime should proceed, the Committee recommends that the Government publish an exposure draft of any legislation and refer it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for examination.

And do so in a very open and transparent way. It identified:

Any draft legislation should include the following features:

That is currently the case. It went on:

So we need to think more wisely about the issues that have been talked through today, particularly in the light of the discussion of what has gone on in the last few weeks. We need to know, and we need to reassure Australians, that we do have a very robust data surveillance scheme. It is not one that intrudes into the lives of people in the way that Senator Ludlam would like to suggest and it is one that is working for Australia.