Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's really quite interesting to be here and speaking against this bill, the Telecommunications Amendment (Repairing Assistance and Access) Bill 2019, because it sits quite awkwardly with the processes that are currently in place for reviewing the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018. In fact, to amend in the way that those in the Labor Party have suggested should occur speaks to a desire to put the quick political point well before the national interest, because what is the point of going through a review process that all of the members of the PJCIS, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, agreed was necessary—they agreed it had to occur—if you're going to try and bring a bill to legislate or pre-empt the outcome of that review process? It just doesn't make any sense. But that reflects the motivations that one could assume lie behind this bill—the desire to appear to be fighting for particular causes whether or not the review process, which all agreed needed to occur, supports it. That's a disappointing thing to see.

Indeed, if it were me, I'd be quite embarrassed to be caught in that little bit of game-playing over something as important as Australia's national security, but everyone has different standards on these things. I would be mortified. Those opposite don't seem quite so worked up about it, but it's an embarrassing tactic to try and undermine these ongoing, detailed reviews of the legislation that are occurring in two fora: one by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, known as the INSLM, and the other by the PJCIS. No doubt, as always, the government will carefully consider any recommendations that are made in those reviews—we always do—when the PJCIS, which has a long history of making an important contribution to the quality of policy in this field, and the INSLM, who is a well-respected lawyer in this field, both give their reports as scheduled in the second half of the year. But to be amending the legislation at a time when we haven't even got the outcomes of those reviews—they're not complete, and we don't have the benefit of that work—is something bordering on daft. If we in this place, including those opposite, are serious about considering the amendments that might be necessary to that act—and I don't suggest for a moment it's perfect—then why on earth would we circumvent a process in place to bring out the very best of policy in this field? It's hard to imagine that it could be motivated by anything other than the cheap political point.

Let's have a little examination of some of the claims that have been made in the Senate today. The first claim that was made by those opposite was that the government has refused to accept the PJCIS's recommendations on the assistance and access legislation. False—absolutely, completely false. In fact the government has supported in principle all amendments consistent with the PJCIS recommendations and that remains the government's position at this very moment. When those recommendations from the bipartisan agreed review process are to hand, we'll consider them and act on them as we always do. But we actually get the value of a proper process here. We understand the way that these processes bring out the best in legislation and we aren't prepared to play political games with Australia's security.

On 6 December the government introduced amendments to the then assistance and access bill to implement the recommendations of the PJCIS, but those opposite didn't like them. It doesn't mean they didn't attempt to give to the PJCIS recommendations: it means it didn't conform to the whim of those opposite. Well, on 3 April the PJCIS had made its recommendations following a second review of that act. All were accepted by the government. The government introduced and the parliament passed legislation to, at the request of the PJCIS in a unanimous sense, defer the date for that committee to complete its third review of the legislation until 30 September this year. Now, to suggest that that constitutes a rejection of the PJCIS recommendations or a refusal to take action on them is nothing short of cooking the books. It's not truthful. It's not honest at all.

Now, let's go to the second claim we've heard today—that is, that this legislation, the assistance and access legislation, would prevent Australia from concluding a CLOUD Act Agreement with the United States. This kind of agreement is quite important to allow Australian investigative agencies to access data relevant to investigations that are held overseas. Those opposite have been peddling what I would say is misinformation on this part: there is no reason why this bill stands in the way of Australia concluding a CLOUD Act Agreement. It simply doesn't compute.

There have been a number of members of the Labor Party peddling this story. We heard it from Senator Keneally today. We heard it from Mr Dreyfus in the speech he gave in 2018 on the bill and we've heard it from Senator Urquhart in this chamber on 4 December, 2019. They say over and over that it's going to stand in the way of an agreement, but you know what? No issues—zero issues—have been identified with the current Assistance and Access Act that would prevent Australia successfully negotiating a CLOUD Act Agreement. They relate to access to communications data and the content of communications; they're not in any way based on an industry assistance request or the provision of a notice under the Assistance and Access Act. To suggest that this legislation stands in the way of a CLOUD Act Agreement is nothing more than peddling the kind of misinformation and hyperbole that is designed to strike fear into the hearts of people who work in this industry. It isn't right, it isn't fair and those opposite need to come clean on it.

The industry assistance framework under the act doesn't itself allow agencies to access communications data or the content of communications. The industry assistance framework is only about technical assistance, and if you want to access communications data or the content of communications agencies have to seek a separate warrant or authorisation from an independent authority. That's never talked about in this debate either. Nobody ever talks about the warrant protections that exist under this arrangement. So, I will give you an example: a stored communications warrant under the Telecommunications Amendment (Repairing Assistance and Access) Bill 2019 would authorise access to the content of stored emails or text messages. That's not new; that's been around since 1979. A technical assistance request or notice wouldn't authorise this access, whether it was domestically or whether it was under the CLOUD Act. So when we're talking about something this important, I'd implore those opposite to raise the bar and stop peddling campaigns of fear on this important subject.

Let's deal with another furphy we got from those opposite.