 Order. The following letter has been received by the President from Senator Seawatt. Dear Mr President, pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion. The threat posed by existing and proposed government incursions into Australia's right to privacy and the freedom of the individual. Is the motion supported? The motion that the proposal is supported? I'll call Senator Ludlam. Thank you, Mr Deputy President, and I thank the Chamber. This debate has been triggered by matters that are presently before the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I wouldn't normally propose to bring matters like this before the Chamber while they are in the capable hands of that committee, because of course that process has a way to go, and I look forward to its report. But I have proposed this debate here this afternoon for a number of reasons. Firstly, because of the extraordinary scope of the proposals that have been put before the committee, which have sparked a consensus of opposition amongst some very unusual allies, and secondly because of the almost total absence of detail or justification in the government's discussion paper when it comes to the most extraordinary examples of overreach proposed in the terms of reference. So what I'm hoping from this debate is some clarity from government senators as to what is actually being proposed and the rationale for it, because it's something that I've not been able to ascertain, and judging by the behaviour even of some government senators in recent hearings of late last week, it appears even government MPs aren't sure exactly what it is that the government is proposing because some of these proposals are unjustified. From coalition senators, particularly from the Liberal Party, Senator Mason, as he beats a retreat from the Chamber, I'm glad to hear that, Senator. I'm very interested to know whether the party of Liberalism actually proposes to stick up for the rights of individuals, whether their privacy is threatened offline or online, and why exactly it is that the coalition appear to be going along with this proposal. I would also acknowledge, however, that there have been some very strong statements by coalition senators. I'm just very keen to know whether this is the view of the party room or whether some individuals have been let out on a leash to test opposition to the proposals. These things are deadly serious, and that is why I've made something of an exception this afternoon and brought these matters to the Chamber while they are still under discussion by the Joint Committee. The parliament and the Joint Committee have been brought into a conversation that the Attorney General's Department has been pursuing with an unwilling technology sector for at least two years. What would it take the government wants to know for phone and internet companies to record all of our activity online, every move made by every Australian across all platforms? That's web traffic, it's who you emailed, it's your phone records, probably also all of your social media activity, every financial transaction, every conversation, and depending on how your mobile phone is configured, your location every minute of the day. This material can then be accessed without a warrant by a very large number of government agencies, police and intelligence agencies of course, but also the tax office, the health department, welfare services and so on. That is the prevailing situation, that's not the proposal that's been put to the Joint Committee, that is the prevailing situation at the moment. Such data of this kind as is already kept by your phone company or your internet provider, because a lot of it is simply jettisoned because of its enormous volume and the speed at which it accumulates. Such data as already exists is already being vacuumed up at an extraordinary rate by the agencies I've just mentioned, 243,631 in the 2010-11 financial year, none of it requiring a warrant, none of it requiring judicial oversight or any accusation of criminal intent. I am sure that a fair number of these requests are used for tracking serious crimes, you just have to look at the number of anti-corruption agencies that are involved in making these requests to understand that many of these requests will be in pursuit of serious criminal matters. But compare that number of just under a quarter of a million requests for traffic data to the applications for intercepts, traditional phone taps and stored communications warrants over the same time period, for phone taps just under three and a half thousand with seven knocked back. Compare it to stored communications warrants over the same time period, 300 requests with two knocked back. To get access to that material, what you would consider traditional wire taps, based on decades of accumulated legal protection supported by all sides of parliament and the general community, you require a magistrate to sign a warrant. You require to be identifying who you're targeting and you need to be pursuing a serious crime, one with a minimum custodial sentence ranging from between three and seven years. But for all the metadata or traffic data that describes your life in intimate detail, whole categories of material that didn't even exist five or ten years ago, a quarter of a million of these requests, no warrants, no requirement to be pursuing any form of criminal activity, applied indiscriminately a quarter of a million across the Australian population. So for those who will come in here shortly and say that surveillance powers need to be updated to keep track of technology, I will say right now on the record, I agree with you. But of course I thought that that's what we were doing with the 45 amendments to the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act since 2001 and the 25 times that we've amended the ASIO Act since 2001. What I say is what about updates to privacy protections in a country with no constitutional protections for privacy, no bill of rights, where are the 45 amendments to privacy protections to also keep track of the way that technology is changing. Think about how much of our lives are now transacted and conducted online and think about where this is going. So let's face one question head-on, the one that I'm asked most often. I've got nothing to hide, so why should I worry about my privacy being basically annihilated? Do you have curtains? Is my question back? Why? If you've got nothing to hide, why hang curtains on your windows? Well because you deserve privacy, because privacy is part of the dignity of your person. Would you be fine to post online your credit card bills, all your transaction records for the past two years? You okay to do that? Of course you wouldn't be. If you wish to, you're free to do so. But I wouldn't advise it. It's not a question of you having something to hide, it's because it's none of anybody's business, your transaction records for the last two years. It's perfectly legitimate to say that I may have nothing to hide but that I don't necessarily feel like showing you either. That is your right, that is your right to privacy. The first UN special rapporteur on the impact of anti-terrorism laws on human rights was in Australia about two weeks ago, that's Martin Schenian. And in his response to this question of not having anything to hide so why bother worrying, he said, what I'm buying, my daughter for her birthday is a secret. It's my secret. I don't want to share it with her or with law enforcement agencies. It's innocent, it's perfectly innocent, but it's mine, it's my secret. And I have some sympathy for that position. Whether it's political views and feel opinions, whether they're popular, whether they're unpopular, you shouldn't be forced to disclose these things to a huge unannounced array of intelligence, security, police, welfare and tax agencies to be mined indiscriminately and data matched in case you turn out to be a criminal sometime down the track. The telecommunications industry has noted the serious cost impacts. They start at half a billion dollars a year and they only go up from there. The Pirate Party in their submission to the Joint Committee noted that one in two Germans had refrained from seeking help from professionals such as marriage and drug abuse counsellors and psychotherapists by phone, mobile phone or email because of privacy concerns. These sort of powers have the effect of freezing up these kind of things. One in 13 people had refrained from using telecommunications because of data retention in Germany which put the number at about six and a half million people. And of course in Germany, where studies showed that using data mining techniques for predictive purposes is a failure. And so of course in Germany it was found to be unconstitutional, also in Romania and Slovakia. And these things are being repealed there. This is not a path that we should go down. I think many Australians are concerned generally about where the line has been drawn under the terrorism laws brought in and never repealed under the Howard government. And this of course is part of something larger. The surveillance powers that are gradually creeping year on year amendment by amendment are part of something much larger. The Acting Privacy Commissioner in Victoria spoke in no uncertain terms that a recent hearing when he said since 2001 terrorism laws have stripped away many civil rights built up in the history of the common law, which are essential to maintaining a democracy. The prohibition against torture, for example, was previously considered absolute. I want to know whether it is any longer. Nobody know. We can no longer say that that prohibition is considered absolute in free and democratic countries such as Australia. Because of course it has been used, excused and instrumentalised. And as such it has taken the human rights framework in the international community back decades or longer. Senator Wright in proposing an inquiry into the treatment of Australian citizen David Hicks in Gontanamo Bay, where he was allegedly chemically tortured, is one such example of the erosion under these terrorism powers. So I congratulate Australia's Attorney General for at least referring these matters to the joint committee and Senator Brandis has joined us who is on that committee. But we know that this proposal has been two years in the making. Under secret talks with the industry talks that evidently the Australian people weren't trusted to be brought in on. Why should we then trust that this material collected won't be used and abused? Why should we trust that it would stay secure? When, as recently as last week on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, corrupt police using telecommunications intercepts to spy on honest police. It's unbelievable. I don't trust this government with these powers. I don't trust an Abbott government and I wouldn't trust a Green's government with powers such as this. They should be unconditionally condemned. Thank you Senator Lodlam. Senator Bill it.