Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is not my first speech. I sit here today filled with those emotions which so often bring that sentence to your mouth: I hate to say I told you so. But I can't help thinking that my former colleague Senator Ludlam did in fact tell the chamber so when he launched his very passionate and effective campaign against the government's metadata laws when they were being passed through the chamber. One of the things which he observed at the time and did bring to this chamber's attention was the extent to which these laws could be used, inadvertently or otherwise, to access the metadata of journalists working in the field.

This chamber was repeatedly assured that this would not be possible, that this would not happen and that the various security agencies involved would have the necessary safeguards to be able to prevent such a thing occurring. But, in fact, it did occur. On 25 April 2017, the AFP disclosed to the Commonwealth Ombudsman that a breach of the Telecommunications Act 1979 had occurred from within the AFP. The breach involved access without a warrant of the metadata of journalists for the purpose of identifying journalistic sources. On 13 October 2015, this chamber introduced the TIA Act in order to attempt to protect journalistic sources from disclosure under the metadata retention scheme, but it seems that this has proved to be rather ineffective. In their report on the matter, the Ombudsman identified four main factors that contributed to the breach, including an insufficient awareness by the AFP of journalistic information warrants, a number of officers not fully appreciating their responsibilities when exercising metadata powers and the AFP itself lacking controls for preventing such a breach. The Ombudsman's report identified that there were four authorisations relating to access of journalists' metadata or identifying journalists' sources—four authorisations, not the one authorisation that the deputy commissioner of the AFP testified to during budget estimates in May.

It seems to me that our worst fears about the possible extent to which these laws may be misused have, indeed, come to pass. And although we are now assured that there have been steps taken to make sure that this does not occur again, I can't help thinking that if this unnecessary and rather Orwellian act of mass surveillance had not been perpetrated upon the Australian people such steps would not be taken. There are many journalists or former journalists in this place who would understand the importance to journalistic integrity of the preservation of journalistic sources. I ask those former members of the fourth estate to reflect upon the dangers posed to independent media by laws such as this. I would also like to thank my former colleague, Senator Ludlam, for his work in this space, rather prophetic as it has now proved to be, and conclude by echoing his words which he said during the debate—that, if you want this kind of information, you should get a warrant.

Question agreed to.