news Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has declined a request to comment on the Federal Government’s controversial surveillance and data retention policy, despite significant public demand for the Liberal MP and the Coalition in general to do so.
The Federal Attorney-General’s Department is currently promulgating a package of reforms which would see a number of wide-ranging changes made to make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor what Australians are doing on the Internet. For example, one new power is a data retention protocol which would require ISPs to retain data on their customers’ Internet and telephone activities for up to two years, and changes which would empower agencies to source data on users’ activities on social networking sites.
In general, the package has attracted a significant degree of criticism from the wider community over the past few months since it was first mooted. Digital rights lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia has described the new powers as being akin to those applied in restrictive countries such as China and Iran, while the Greens have described the package as “a systematic erosion of privacy”.
In separate submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into the reforms, a number of major telecommunications companies including iiNet and Macquarie Telecom, as well as telco and ISP representative industry groups, have expressed sharp concern over aspects of the reform package, stating that “insufficient evidence” had been presented to justify them. And Victoria’s Acting Privacy Commissioner has labelled some of the included reforms as “being characteristic of a police state”.
The Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative and free market-focused think tank, wrote in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the matter that many of the proposals of the Government were “unnecessary and excessive. “The proposal … is onerous and represents a significant incursion on the civil liberties of all Australians,” wrote the IPA in its submission, arguing that the data retention policy should be “rejected outright”.
Yesterday, Delimiter highlighted the issue in an email to Turnbull’s office, highlighting the extensive public criticism of the proposal, and the fact that the issue was strongly related to core liberal (liberalism) values such as privacy, freedom of speech, the freedom to associate and curtailing government intervention in the private life of citizens. These concepts are core tenets underpinning Liberal Party values.
In response, Turnbull’s office said only that the MP would comment on the issue ‘down the track’.
The Shadow Communications Minister’s refusal to comment on the data retention and surveillance package comes despite significant public demand for him to do so. On Tuesday Delimiter invited readers on Twitter to re-tweet a message asking the Opposition to comment at all on the issue, including Turnbull’s Twitter address in the message.
Some 61 people re-tweeted this message, and a further 148 re-tweeted a follow-up tweet noting that they would like to see Attorney-General face a higher degree of media scrutiny on the issue through an interview on the ABC’s flagship national affairs program 7:30, which has been notable in recent weeks for its stringent approach to fact-checking politicians.
Turnbull’s reticence to comment also comes as other figures within the Coalition have not been as silent as the Member for Wentworth.
Earlier this week on the ABC’s Lateline program, long-time Liberal MP Steve Ciobo broke ranks with his party colleagues to severely criticise the surveillance package. “I think that this proposal is akin, frankly, to tactics that we would have seen utilised by the Gestapo or groups like that,” Ciobo said, echoing the Victorian Privacy Commission’s concerns about the surveillance proposal leading to a police state. Challenged about the statement on Twitter, Ciobo elaborated: ” What’s obscene about that statement?” he asked. “The only obscene thing is a proposal to monitor and record the entire population!”
And yesterday, Ciobo continued his attack on the surveillance package on Twitter, re-tweeting comments which the IPA had made to the parliamentary inquiry into the matter. “The suite of policies proposed in the Attorney General’s Discussion Paper add up to one of the most significant attacks on civil liberties in Australian history,” the IPA’s representatives told the inquiry. “Many of the proposals breach the rule of law, severely curb civil liberties, and threaten freedom of speech.”
Turnbull’s reticence to comment also comes as Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has this week sought to play down the implications of the Government’s proposed new surveillance powers. “As you will be aware, there has been a lot of press coverage about one component of the reforms – and that is data retention,” Roxon told a conference in Canberra this morning. Roxon’s full speech is available online here in Word docx format.
“Many of you will recall the disturbing murder of Cabramatta MP John Newman in Sydney in 1994. Call charge records and cell tower information were instrumental in the investigation and subsequent conviction on Phuong Ngo. These records allowed police to reconstruct the crime scene. Many investigations require law enforcement to build a picture of criminal activity over a period of time. Without data retention, this capability will be lost.”
“The intention behind the proposed reform is to allow law enforcement agencies to continue investigating crime in light of new technologies. The loss of this capability would be a major blow to our law enforcement agencies and to Australia’s national security.”
opinion/analysis
In my view, Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has a responsibility to comment on the surveillance and data retention package which the Attorney-General’s Department is currently trying to push through into legislation. Turnbull is one of Australia’s leading proponents of liberalism, and as the IPA has pointed out very clearly, much of the package being pushed forward at the moment runs directly contrary to that philosophy. Then, too, isn’t Turnbull Australia’s Shadow Communications Minister? This seems to be pretty clearly in his portfolio.
I, for one, would be severely disappointed if senior Liberal figures such as Turnbull quietly stood by while a system of universal surveillance was imposed on Australians. I’m not sure what more it takes to get senior politicians engaged with this sort of proposal, but if four dozen requests through social media to Turnbull in the space of half an hour and the Victorian Privacy Commissioner describing the proposals as being akin to a “police state” aren’t a signal that something of interest to the Member for Wentworth is going on here, I don’t know what would be.
Image credit: Office of Malcolm Turnbull
“I, for one, would be severely disappointed if senior Liberal figures such as Turnbull quietly stood by while a system of universal surveillance was imposed on Australians.”
Stood quietly by? Didn’t they actively vote FOR it? With the Greens against it, I can’t see any other way it would have become law. Anyone have any solid info on the voting numbers in both houses for this bill?
This is typical of the recent Liberal strategy of having a bob each way, to look like they are against something without actually doing anything about it. Hence the recent strategy of having Barbaby speak out against the Cubbie station sale to get the xenophobic vote, while still saying they support foreign investment.
That was my understanding too mate.
I get the feeling that they’re basically in favour of this, despite being libertarian in persuasion. While the flavour of politics doesnt matter much, Im not surprised here. I expected them to back this, just like the opposition did in the UK when this came up.
While it may not be in the best interests of privacy, there are some methods in the legislation that have a purpose. I would have liked more fat-cutting or revision by the opposition first tho.
Of course they’re in favour of it. Political assassination is just one of the forms of abuse that a massive surveillance database will attract.
Of course Turnbull isn’t going to say anything. Here in an opportunity to get a data retention scheme they are in favor of without looking like the bad guy. The only ones you can trust on this issue here are the Greens.
That’s the “great” thing about the coalition too, they are made up of liberal and national party members, this gives them a perfect cover whenever they are collectively in hypocritical mode. We then allow ourselves to be sucked in by this time and time again.
Wouldn’t this fall under Senator George Brandis, the Shadow Attorney General?
Yes.
Somewhat. There is an argument to be made that it is in both Turnbull and Brandis’ portfolio. FYI Brandis won’t comment on this either.
While this is an unsurprising stance from Turnbull, it is also curious given his stance in other areas.
As a man who is constantly critical of the FTTP NBN, and the “high cost” that it will force onto end user ISP pricing – (despite that having been shown to be a complete fallacy) – to close up shop and refuse to comment on an issue that absolutely will put high pressure on end user ISP pricing is hypocritical.
And even if you look at this issue and ignore these pricing pressures, it seems incomprehensible that the man who is shadow communications spokesperson, and the man who should be concerned with the impacts this plan would have on the telecommunications industry, this is a disgraceful stance.
Utterly spineless.
Turnbull saying he’ll comment later is quite understandable, when you think of it from the current LNP perspective:
“Down the track” = “during the election campaign when it’ll do the most damage to Labor”
That can’t happen – it had coalition support.
It’s hardly surprising when people who actively seek the power to run others lives act in an authoritarian manner.
That said, any bill a member of parliament supports they *must* be willing to justify their reasons for doing so. Failure in this is an abrogation of their duties to their constituents.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that “no comment” == “broadly in favour of”. For an opposition that’s so vocal in it’s opposition to pretty everything the government does, this almost total silence is saying a lot more than anything else.
Agree entirely. If anyone thinks the Libs don’t want to spy on the net, and retain large chunks of data just as much as Labor, they are deluded. They might say otherwise until the election of course, but if anything an ultra-conservative government would be more likely to pander to the needs of big business, content producers and IP holders.
So Turnbull wont comment, for now, on the proposed data retention proposal. He wont answer the questions put to him by Delimiter about his FTTN downgrade of the NBN.
The reason is simple. Tony wont let him!
“Many of you will recall the disturbing murder of Cabramatta MP John Newman in Sydney in 1994. Call charge records and cell tower information were instrumental in the investigation and subsequent conviction on Phuong Ngo. These records allowed police to reconstruct the crime scene. Many investigations require law enforcement to build a picture of criminal activity over a period of time. Without data retention, this capability will be lost.”
I have read this a few times now and it still doesn’t make sense to me. Is the AG saying that because the police were able to use existing laws to successfully convict someone of murder we need new laws?
“I have read this a few times now and it still doesn’t make sense to me. Is the AG saying that because the police were able to use existing laws to successfully convict someone of murder we need new laws?”
This – in a nutshell – is why this whole plan is stupid.
“I have read this a few times now and it still doesn’t make sense to me. Is the AG saying that because the police were able to use existing laws to successfully convict someone of murder we need new laws?”
She is saying that technology has changed, and law enforcement no longer has the means to track people using the methods they used to.
There was a conviction in the Newman case, based on existing powers, that continue to be sufficient. Yes technology has changed. Laws have also moved, to allow data interception when a court grants it.
Of course, you may intend down the track to start saying “The tax office could use this data to catch tax avoiders”, or “we might as well use it to catch dole cheats”. Freedoms get taken one at a time, and the major parties are more than happy to seek more power through acts such as this.
/absolutely disgusted.
Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au
I don’t know where the push for this data retention stuff is really coming from. It is possibly something that has come out of discussions with our allies and hence not something any politician with aspirations to the top job would wade into without careful consideration.
It’s coming from the bureaucrats in the Attorney-General’s Department.
Comments are closed.