Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the chamber, I understand that amendments have not yet been circulated to everyone. We're waiting for the hard copies of the amendments to be circulated. In the interim, I see Senator Shoebridge on his feet. Are you content to proceed at this point?

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm content to proceed. I have a few short questions for the minister that may resolve all of my concerns. Minister, obviously one of the concerns that's been raised by the Internet Association of Australia is that this legislation is being brought forward before the conclusion of the Home Affairs review into surveillance. Are you in a position to provide the parliament with an update on where that review is and what the expected timeframe for the provision of the recommendations from that review is?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The review is underway, and I can confirm that we're expecting progress on that in this term of parliament.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the terms of reference for the review—at least according to Home Affairs—is to 'better protect individuals' information and data, including by reflecting what it means to communicate in the 21st century'. Minister, given that this legislation proposes a significant increase in the sharing and distribution of private data obtained under surveillance warrants, did the government consider holding off on this bill until you had the maturer reflection from Home Affairs on that issue?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We believe that it is necessary to progress this bill urgently. It's necessary to address the technical issues that are preventing agencies from exercising existing powers in the manner that the parliament intended, required to support prosecutors and agencies to comply with disclosure obligations and to support a fair trial, and required to finalise machinery-of-government changes following the making of a new administrative arrangements order on 13 May 2025.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, of course, this goes beyond just changing the names and the entity that can use existing powers. This significantly increases how information can be shared and expands the purposes for which information can be shared. It's not the government's contention—is it?—that this is simply a technical change to deal with the re-establishment of Home Affairs. That's not a serious contention for the government, is it?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was one of the components that I mentioned, as well as preventing agencies from exercising existing powers in the manner that the parliament intended, and it's required to support prosecutors and agencies to comply with disclosure obligations and to support a fair trial. So there were additional reasons for the urgency.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The PJCIS report deals at some modest length with the proposed changes to IPOs, or international production orders. It's true that Australia has an arrangement with the United States for IPOs under the Australia-US CLOUD Act Agreement. Is that the arrangement, the existing arrangement, under which this expanded amount of information will be provided to the United States if this bill is passed? Would it still be the Australia-US CLOUD Act Agreement?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is still the agreement, and it doesn't expand the ability of those agencies to gain increased information from Australians.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I hear what you say. The problem I have is that what you've just told the Senate is starkly at odds with what the PJCIS has said. I'll read from their report.

The International Production Orders (IPO) framework in Schedule 1 … enables Australian law enforcement and national security agencies to obtain an IPO … where Australia has a designated international agreement with the foreign country—

and that's where they reference the Australia-US CLOUD Act Agreement.

This means that Australian law enforcement and national security agencies can ask communications service providers in the US to provide content or data to investigate or prosecute serious offences in Australia, and allows US law enforcement and security agencies to similarly request access to content or data held by Australian-based communication service providers to investigate or prosecute crimes in the US.

That's them describing the current arrangements. But they go on to say:

The bill seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the TIA Act to replace the term 'intercepting' with 'accessing' in relation to IPOs.279 The effect of this is to broaden when an IPO may be issued—an eligible judge or nominated administrative review tribunal member must consider the agency's 'access' to communications, messages, voice calls or video calls in relation to IPOs, rather than the technical method by which the information is captured, stored or retrieved.280

So is PJCIS right when it says it broadens when an IPO may be issued, or are you right when you say there's no change?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendments are necessary to give effect to the original intent of the legislation, allowing for the interception international production orders to be used to receive prospective content data. In the course of operationalising the international production order framework, it became evident that the framework does not accurately cover the technical methods used by some providers to collect, store and return prospective communications. In essence, the existing provisions assume data will be delivered to agencies in real time, but in reality providers may be unable to provide real-time interception, and it could, instead, occur on a periodic basis. The amendments, therefore, provide certainty that international production orders may be used to receive prospective content data regardless of the technical method used to create, copy and send prospective data and that, as I said before, this does not expand the ability of the US to access information from Australians.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I might have said that that reference was from PJCIS. It's actually from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human RightsReport 5 of 2025. I just want to clarify that—sorry. Again, Minister, what you say and what the unanimous report of the parliamentary committee says are somewhat at odds. The human rights committee says at 1.231:

In relation to proportionality, broadening when an IPO may be issued, and allowing prescribed communication providers to share stored communications, exacerbates the previous concerns identified in relation to the IPO framework and the right to privacy. In particular, in relation to B-party orders where an order is made in relation to services used by an individual who is not the target allowing a prescribed communications provider to provide stored communications regarding this person appears to greatly broaden the amount of personal data that a provider can share even where the person is not the target of the investigation.

Now, is that right? Is the unanimous report from the parliamentary joint committee—which says that these amendments appear to 'greatly broaden the amount of personal data that a provider can share even where the person is not the target of the investigation'—right? That's the effect of this bill, isn't it?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the human rights committee report and the amendments, they do not affect Australian providers or how incoming orders from foreign partners may be handled. The amendments only relate to the compliance by foreign service providers with Australian orders.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You see, at no point has your government clarified with the human rights committee that that's the case. Indeed, it's my understanding the human rights committee came to this conclusion on a thorough review of the legislation, including with the assistance of information from Home Affairs. We are left, again, in a difficult situation where a unanimous report of the human rights committee that considered this bill at length says that it appears to 'greatly broaden the amount of personal data that a provider can share even where the person is not the target of the investigation'. Against that, we have the rhetoric of both the government and the opposition that this is all technical, there's nothing to see here and, 'Don't you worry about it.'

I've got to say, on behalf of the Australian Greens, we find the unanimous recommendation after careful deliberation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights more persuasive than the bare assertions that have been provided by both the government and the opposition. Can you explain, if what you say to the Senate is true, how it is that at no point has the minister sought to clarify what looks like, on your version—and, I've got to say, I think there's a credibility gap—such a significant mischaracterisation by the committee?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I would point out is that the PJCIS has recommended that this bill be passed without amendment, and that's what the government intends to do.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes you know you're tilling some barren ground, so I might move on. Have the amendments now been circulated?

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 3474:

(1) Schedule 4, page 13 (line 1) to page 15 (line 16), to be opposed.

I think it might be addressed in how the question is put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's right, and it will be.

I might quickly explain the amendments. Schedule 4 changes the language of 'intercepting' to 'accessing' in certain circumstances which, in our understanding—which is informed by cogent submissions by the Internet Association of Australia and the conclusions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—is intended to broaden the issuing person's considerations to access of the information. It qualifies the use of the expression 'interception in some instances' by 'interception as permitted under an international production order', and that's about an issuing person needing to consider the broader concept of a target's information and therefore potentially significantly expanding the operation of the IPOs, and it does so in the context of the US agreement. As I think we heard earlier, the only country that Australia has an agreement with for the IPOs is the United States. Indeed, I might just close that gate. Minister, is that right? Does Australia have an agreement with anybody other than United States for IPOs?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can confirm that's correct.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's only the United States that we have an arrangement with—I see you nodding.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In fact, I even heard, 'Correct.' I won't repeat what I said in the second reading contribution, but I will just make it very clear that the Australian Greens do not trust the current United States administration. We believe the Trump Administration is erratic and dangerous. We see it weaponising and politicising its criminal justice system, and we see the erosion of basic rights within the United States in the democratic and legal systems happening at pace. We are deeply concerned that, while that is happening, the Albanese Labor government is proposing to significantly increase the amount of information that they are willing to give to the United States about Australian private citizens that has been obtained without their consent and without their knowledge using existing surveillance laws. We are deeply concerned that the proposal here will greatly broaden the amount of personal data that can be shared with the United States, including when the personal data is of a person who is not the target of an investigation, and we rely upon the conclusions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to confirm those concerns. We think it is reckless and dangerous to be providing such a large expanded amount of secretly obtained surveillance data from Australian citizens who are not the target of an investigation to the Trump Administration at this point, and that is why we move these amendments to try and remove schedule 4 of the bill.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing these amendments for the reasons that I set out earlier, and we intend to pass the bill unamended.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 4 stand as printed.