Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendments. As I indicated in my second reading remarks, they do implement the recommendations made by the PJCIS, and it is our view that they will improve the operation of the legislation.

I also indicate, in response to some of the remarks made through the course of the second reading debate and the committee's proceedings, that the opposition does recognise there are grave risks and new risks that arise from having a society so intimately and integrally dependent on digital and that managing telecommunications risks is at the heart of managing against those more general risks. There have been remarks through the course of the debate that indicate that we could expect telecommunications service providers to manage these risks as a commercial imperative. I would submit to the Senate that that I think misunderstands the nature of the risk and the commercial imperative as it applies to these businesses. It is true that in most instances it will be in the commercial interests of a telecommunications service provider to meet national security objectives. Indeed, the experience so far has been that these service providers have engaged constructively with government. However, it is possible to imagine a circumstance where national security objectives do not align with the commercial imperatives of a business. Under those circumstances, the directors of that company would find themselves in a difficult situation. At least one impact of this legislation would be to create comfort for directors who now have an active obligation to manage, as best they can, national security in the operation of their business.

I also wish to remark briefly on the debate that has taken place around offshoring and, in doing so, to note that there is a distinction between security risks to data that is voluntarily provided by a consumer of telecommunications services and security risks to data that is held as a result of government legislation—specifically, retained metadata. That distinction was recognised by the committee and in part is reflected in the recommendations made by the committee that there ought to be special consideration given to security obligations around retained metadata. The government amendments now provide that, where changes to the handling of retained metadata are being contemplated by a telecommunications service provider, they need to notify government that that is the case, and the opposition believes that that is appropriate.

As previously, I indicate that we're supportive of these amendments and commend the bill overall to the chamber.