Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Siewert for her thoughtful contribution. One of the reasons that this debate has spilled over today is that the Attorney-General unnecessarily detained the chamber for well over an hour refusing to provide a document—effectively, his response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which raised 19 separate concerns. Having had the opportunity now to review some of the concerns that they raise, I might come back to some of those later in the debate.

We have, as Senator Siewert indicated, moved to debate on the first substantive amendment, which is the Australian Greens amendment relating to the definition of 'computer' and the fact that this bill mandates an extraordinary expansion to how the law henceforth will understand to be the definition of a computer by expanding it to include the definition of a network or networks.

A couple of days ago, on 24 September, there was a piece by Ben Grubb in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled 'Fears ASIO to monitor entire internet' that noted the fact that the Senate had begun debating this legislation. The fear that the article describes is—as many witnesses and submitters to the joint committee noted—that this deliberate expansive definition of 'computer' means that, effectively, with one single warrant ASIO could spy on any device connected to the internet anywhere in the world. I find it remarkable that, under the weight of this evidence, the Labor Party considers that that is okay.

Having, I guess, to my satisfaction found that this was not a drafting error and was in fact intentional, I put the question to Senator Brandis last night, and I think just before the debate adjourned, Senator Brandis confirmed to Senator Macdonald and to me that it is in fact the intention the Australian government that a single—