Introductory Info
Date introduced: 13 February 2019
House: Senate
Portfolio: Home Affairs
Commencement: The day after Royal Assent.
Purpose and
structure
The purposes of the Telecommunications and Other
Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 (the 2019 Bill) are
as follows:
Background
In September 2018, the Government
introduced the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance
and Access) Bill 2018 (the TOLA Bill).[1]
The TOLA Bill amended a number of Acts to facilitate access to certain
communications and data for the purposes of disrupting and investigating
criminal activity and threats to national security, including organised crime
and terrorism. The TOLA Bill contained measures aimed at facilitating lawful
access to communications and data through two avenues – decryption of encrypted
technologies and access to communications and data at points where they are not
encrypted. The TOLA Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) for inquiry, with no prescribed reporting date.[2] The Committee received 105
submissions to the inquiry and conducted five public hearings.[3] In November 2018, the
Minister for Home Affairs asked the Committee to ‘accelerate’ its inquiry into
the TOLA Bill in order for it to be passed in the Parliament before the end of
the year:
On 22 November 2018, the Committee received
advice from the Minister for Home Affairs that there was an immediate need to
provide agencies with additional powers and to pass the Bill in the last
sitting week of 2018. The Minister noted that:
The situation has
become more urgent in light of the recent fatal terrorist attack in Melbourne
and the subsequent disruption of alleged planning for a mass casualty attack by
three individuals ...
I am gravely
concerned that our agencies cannot rule out the possibility that others may
also have been inspired by events in Melbourne to plan and execute attacks ...
This is particularly concerning as we approach Christmas and the New Year,
which we know have been targeted previously by terrorists planning attacks
against Australians gathered to enjoy the festive season ...
For these reasons I
ask that the committee accelerate its consideration of this vital piece of
legislation to enable its passage by the parliament before it rises for the
Christmas break.[4]
The PJCIS did not reach full agreement on
all aspects of the TOLA Bill. However, the Committee tabled an Advisory Report
on 5 December 2018 and acknowledged:
... there is a genuine and immediate need for
agencies to have tools to respond to the challenge of encrypted communications.
The absence of these tools results in an escalation of risk and has been
hampering agency investigations over several years. As the uptake of encrypted
messaging applications increases, it is increasingly putting the community at
risk from perpetrators of serious crimes who are able to evade detection.
Responding to these escalating risks, the
Committee recommends that the Parliament give urgent consideration to the Bill
and its immediate passage.[5]
Advisory Report on the Telecommunications and other Legislation
(Assistance and Access) Bill 2018
The Committee made 17 recommendations in its
report of December 2018 to facilitate the Parliament’s consideration and swift
passage of the TOLA Bill.[6]
During the Parliamentary debate of the Bill, the Government presented 173
Government amendments to all Schedules of the Bill which were both in response
to the PJCIS’ inquiry and recommendations as well as additional technical
amendments that were agreed to during debate.[7]
Further, Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann moved an amendment to the second
reading motion to require the PJCIS to conduct a review of the operation of the
amendments made by the Bill and report on that review by 3 April 2019.[8]
Additional comments on the PJCIS Report on the TOLA Bill
Labor members of the PJCIS welcomed the
amendments recommended in the Committee’s Advisory Report but did not consider
that those amendments addressed ‘all of the problems in this Bill’.[9] However Labor agreed to
progress the TOLA Bill due to evidence from law enforcement and security
agencies of the immediate need for the powers. Labor noted in Additional
comments in the Advisory Report:
We are only prepared to [expedite the Bill’s
passage] because of the government’s undertaking that:
-
the committee will continue its inquiry into the
Bill into 2019, and
-
a separate statutory review will be undertaken by
the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor within 18 months of the
legislation coming into effect.[10]
Parliamentary bottleneck
Once it was agreed that the TOLA Bill would
proceed to debate and passage before Christmas, the proceedings stalled in the
Parliament due to debate on other matters and the expiration of time in which the
House of Representatives could vote on any Senate amendments to the Bill. The
Labor Opposition expressed its frustration on the evening of 6 December 2018
when Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus
held a press conference where Mr Shorten said:
If you [Mr Morrison] agree to do the amendments
which you’ve already agreed, to the encryption laws, in the first week of next
year, we will pass the encryption laws, unsatisfactory as they are, right now.
Because we are not going to go home and leave the Australian people on their
own over Christmas with inferior laws of national safety[11].
On this basis, the TOLA Bill was passed with
Labor’s support on 6 December 2018. On 12 December 2018 media reports stated
that Minister Dutton had clarified the Government’s intended approach to
amendments, stating that ‘amendments that are consistent with the joint
recommendations’ from the PJCIS would be considered, but that the Government was
‘not going
beyond that so Labor can try and water it down through whatever means they like’.[12]
The 2019 Bill before the Parliament presents
an opportunity for Labor to propose additional amendments to the TOLA Act.
Procedural
background
As discussed earlier, the TOLA Bill had an accelerated
passage on 6 December 2018, and Labor agreed to pass the legislation
on the advice that it was required over the Christmas period. Labor had
indicated that it wanted to make some amendments to the Bill as introduced and
sought an agreement with the Government to be able to bring on amendments in
the first sitting week of the new year. The amendments that Labor proposed in
the Senate in December 2018 were withdrawn on that basis.[13]
The 2019 Bill was introduced in the Senate on 13 February 2019
and then debated the next day. The Bill will make further
amendments to the telecommunications access regime that passed the Parliament
on the final sitting day of 2018. During debate
on 14 February, the Senate passed one of four Opposition amendments.[14]
(The amendments proposed by the Opposition are discussed in more detail below).
The Government indicated it would not support the one amendment that was being
debated at the time of the adjournment.[15]
At the time of writing, the Bill remains before the Senate.
Committee
consideration
The 2019 Bill has not been referred to a Committee for
further consideration.
Senator Siewert of the Australian Greens sought the
referral of the Bill to a committee for the reason that the ‘legislation has
only just been introduced and requires possible consideration’.[16]
The Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills considered the Bill
but was ‘unable to reach agreement’ on referral.[17]
The Senate declined to refer the Bill to committee for inquiry.[18]
However, the PJCIS has commenced a review of the TOLA Act
(Telecommunications
and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018):
The review will consider all aspects of the Act
and its implementation, including a review of Government amendments introduced
and passed on 6 December 2018, as referred by the Senate in a second reading
amendment on 6 December 2018. The Senate’s referral requires the Committee to
report by 3 April 2019.[19]
This review is not specifically required to consider
the 2019 Bill, although as this Bill is part of the broader implementation of
the Act, the Committee may comment on the provisions of the Bill.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
At the time of publication of this Digest, the Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has not commented on the 2019 Bill.
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Labor
As noted above, in November 2018, the
Minister for Home Affairs asked the PJCIS to accelerate its inquiry into the TOLA
Bill in order to enable it to pass the Parliament before the end of the year. In
her second reading speech on the 2019 Bill, Senator McAllister stated:
The case for urgency was forcefully
prosecuted by the government in the media. At one point documents that had been
provided to the committee confidentially were leaked into the public domain and
appeared on the front page of a newspaper, and the government has refused to
initiate any investigation into that leak. National security agencies
subsequently gave public evidence to the committee that they needed the powers
contained in the 2018 bill in order to respond to the heightened risk of terror
over the Christmas period.
In response to that evidence, the committee
finished its inquiry early. It issued a consensus report that made 17
recommendations for a range of amendments to improve these laws. The government
committed to moving amendments that reflected those recommendations. On the
morning of 6 December 2018, the last parliamentary sitting day of 2018,
the government introduced 173 lengthy amendments to the 2018 bill. Some of
those amendments did not properly reflect the text or the intent of the
committee's recommendations, and that is not just Labor's view. It is the view
of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; it is the view of
lawyers; it is the view of civil society groups; and it is the view of the
Commonwealth Ombudsman.[20]
The Senator noted the rushed process
during the debate in December last year, that Labor had obtained a commitment
from the Government that it would allow consideration of opposition amendments
to rectify these problems and oversights, and that this Bill reflects that
commitment. She also noted that Labor ‘is further seeking to refer the
measures in the Bill to our parliamentary inquiry to report on the economic
impacts’.[21]
Greens
The Greens proposed an amendment to remove Schedule 2 of
the 2019 Bill, that is, an amendment to remove the re-listing of state crime
and corruption commissions in the definition of interception agency in
section 317B of the Telecommunications Act.[22]
This amendment is yet to be considered in the Senate.
Position of
major interest groups
There is ongoing concern about the implementation of the Telecommunications
and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 (TOLA
Act)[23]
but no specific comment to note by major interest groups on this particular
amendment Bill. For consideration of the issues concerning major interest
groups at the time of the TOLA Bill’s debate, see the Parliamentary Library’s
Bills Digest on the TOLA Bill.[24]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the amendments made
by the Bill will have no financial impact.[25]
Statement of Compatibility
with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[26]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
At the time of publication of this Digest, the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has not commented on the 2019 Bill.
Key issues
and provisions
Review of the
TOLA Act
Currently subsection 6(1D) of the INSLM Act
requires a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the
amendments made by the TOLA Act to be undertaken by the INSLM as soon as
practicable after the 18 month period beginning on the day the TOLA Act
received Royal Assent. Item 1 of Schedule 1 will amend paragraph
6(1D)(b) of the INSLM Act to omit the phrase “as soon as practicable after”
and substitute “before the end of”. This amendment will change the timeframe
for the INSLM to review the TOLA Act. This will mean that the review of
the amendments made by the TOLA Act will need to be completed by 8 June
2020. This implements Recommendation 14 of the PJCIS’ Advisory Report on the
TOLA Bill.[27]
Industry
assistance to anti-corruption bodies
Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act allows
specified law enforcement and intelligence agencies to request or require
assistance from designated communication providers. Requests for assistance are
made through a ‘technical assistance request’.[28]
A provider may choose to voluntarily comply with a request, but is not required
to do so. A provider may also be compelled to provide assistance to a relevant agency
through the issuance of a ‘technical assistance notice’ by the agency head,[29]
or a ‘technical capability notice’ by the Attorney-General.[30]
The agencies that are currently able to request or require
such industry assistance are the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation,
the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Signals Directorate and
‘interception agencies’.
‘Interception agency’ is defined at section 317B of the Telecommunications
Act as the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission, or
the police force of a state or the Northern Territory. While anti-corruption
bodies and investigative commissions were included in the TOLA Bill as
introduced,[31]
they were removed following a recommendation made by the PJCIS to exclude them
from the scope of Schedule 1 of that Bill:
The Committee recommends that State and Territory law
enforcement agencies be retained within the scope of the Bill, with the
exception of State and Territory independent commission against corruption
which the Committee recommends should be excluded from the scope of Schedule 1
of the Bill.[32]
The second reading speech to the current Bill notes that
‘the exclusion of these bodies was recommended as an interim measure while the
Committee continued its consideration of the Act’.[33]
The second reading speech noted:
A joint submission from the Commissioners of eight State
anti-corruption and Crime Commission plus the Commissioner of the Australian
Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to the PJCIS’ Inquiry into the Act has
called for the urgent extension of the Act’s industry assistance measures to
these agencies. The Commissioners note that these powers are crucial in their
fights against organised crime and corruption.[34]
Schedule 2 of the Bill, items 1-9 have the
effect of extending the definition of ‘interception agency’ to include the Australian
Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, the Corruption and Crime Commission
(WA), the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission of Victoria, the
Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (SA), the Independent Commission
Against Corruption of New South Wales, the New South Wales Crime Commission,
the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission of New South Wales, and the Crime and
Corruption Commission of Queensland.
Opposition
amendments
Senator McAllister moved a number of Opposition amendments
in the Senate for further consideration, stating:
...[we] take seriously the task of making sure
legislation is appropriate and adapted to the ends it is trying to undertake.
That means limiting the unintended consequences to individuals and businesses.
That is why we are going through this process today. We have been consulting
with industry, with tech experts, with lawyers and with civil society, and also
with the agencies themselves. We are doing the work necessary to improve this
legislation.[35]
Systemic weakness or systemic vulnerability
The first amendment proposed by the ALP was agreed to by
the Senate and will repeal definitions of ‘electronic protection’, ‘systemic
vulnerability’, ‘system weakness’ and ‘target technology’ in section 317B of
the Telecommunications Act.[36]
These terms relate to limitations on the assistance that may be requested or
required under a technical assistance request, technical assistance notice or
technical capability notice.
Section 317ZG of the Telecommunications Act, which
was included in the TOLA Bill as originally introduced,[37]
provides that such a request or notice must not have the effect of:
- requesting or requiring a designated
communications provider to implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic
vulnerability, into a form of electronic protection; or
- preventing a designated communications provider
from rectifying a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability,
in a form of electronic protection.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the TOLA Bill explained that
section 317ZG:
... ensures that providers cannot be required to systemically
weaken their systems of electronic protection under a technical assistance
notice or technical capability notice. The limitation is designed to protect
the fundamental security of software and devices. It ensures that the products
Australians enjoy and rely on cannot be made vulnerable to interference by
malicious actors.[38]
However, in the Bill as introduced, the bolded terms in
section 317ZG were not defined. The definitions of these terms were introduced
by the Government amendments to the TOLA Bill,[39]
in response to concerns raised by stakeholders that the absence of such
definitions led to a lack of clarity in how the prohibition in section 317ZG would
apply.[40]
The ALP’s amendment to remove the definitions relies on
feedback from stakeholders that the definitions are ‘difficult
to understand, ambiguous and significantly too narrow’.[41] With the removal of these
definitions, the terms will have their ordinary meaning.
The Labor amendments approved by the Senate also repeal
and replace section 317ZG, to (among other things) provide that the prohibition
on requiring or requesting the creation of a systemic weakness or systemic
vulnerability:
... includes a reference to any act or thing
that would or may create a material risk that otherwise secure information
would or may in the future be collected, accessed, used, manipulated, disclosed
or otherwise compromised by an unauthorised third party.[42]
Senator McAlister characterised the proposed amendment as
aimed at ‘protect[ing] the information of innocent people’.[43]
Listed acts or things
A further ALP amendment proposes changes to section 317G
of the Telecommunications Act, which relates to technical assistance
requests to designated communications providers from ASIO, ASIS, the ASD or an
interception agency.[44]
Subsection 317G(6) currently provides that the assistance that may be requested
includes (but is not limited to) ‘listed acts or things’ (as defined in section
317E this includes removing electronic protection, providing technical
information, installing software, putting information in a particular format
and facilitating access to devices or services).[45]
The amendment proposed by the ALP to subsection 317G(6) will limit the scope of
requested assistance to ‘listed acts or things’. Senator McAlister stated that
this amendment would implement Recommendation 10 of the PJCIS’ Advisory report.[46]
Section 317T of the Telecommunications Act sets out
the procedure for a technical capability notice. Amendments to that section
will also ensure that assistance required under such a notice is limited to
‘listed acts or things’ and remove the ability of the Minister to specify additional
acts or things that may be requested. This amendment is also said to respond to
Recommendation 10 of the PJCIS’ Advisory report.[47]
AFP approval of state or territory interception agency technical
assistance notices
Senator McAllister also moved an amendment to section
317LA of the Telecommunications Act. That section provides that a state
or territory interception agency is not permitted to give a technical
assistance notice to a designated communications provider unless the AFP
Commissioner has approved the giving of the notice. Section 317LA was
introduced as a Government amendment to the TOLA Bill, in response to Recommendation
7 of the Advisory report of the PJCIS.[48]
Senator McAllister’s proposed amendment would provide that
the AFP Commissioner must not give such approval unless he or she is satisfied
that the requirements imposed by the notice are reasonable and proportionate,
and compliance with the notice is practicable and technically feasible.[49]
During debate, Senator McAllister indicated:
The government's amendments provide that the AFP Commissioner
may approve a technical notice, but the amendments did not establish the
decision-making criteria for approval. Labor's amendment will make it clear
that the AFP must follow the process recommended by the committee. We are also
moving other amendments that would limit technical assistance requests and
technical capability notices to certain specified acts and things.[50]
Ombudsman’s report
The final amendment proposed by Senator McAllister would
repeal subsection 317ZRB(7) of the Telecommunications Act.[51]
Section 317ZRB allows the Ombudsman to inspect the records of an interception
agency to determine its compliance with Part 15 of that Act. The Ombudsman may
then make a written report to the Minister for Home Affairs on the results of the
inspection. Such a report must be tabled by the Minister within 15 sitting
days. However, subsection 317ZRB(7) provides that, before tabling the report,
the Minister may delete information that, if made public, could reasonably be
expected to prejudice an investigation or prosecution; or compromise any
interception agency’s operational activities or methodologies. The Minister’s
discretion to amend the report in this way would be removed by Labor’s
amendment.
Concluding
comments
The PJCIS is due to report on 3 April 2019 on the TOLA Act
as enacted in December 2018. The 2019 Bill will need to be considered by the
Senate by that date or the Bill will lapse on prorogation of the Parliament. Further
legislative amendments to the TOLA Act may be forthcoming following the
PJCIS report, however it is unlikely they would be presented in the current
Parliament.