30January2017
Communications SecurityBranch
Attorney-General’sDepartment
3-5National Circuit
BARTONNSW2600
Byemail:
DearMrKelleherandMs Sheehan,
Theparties to thissubmission–AAP, ABC, APNNewsMedia, AustralianSubscription TelevisionandRadio Association, BauerMediaGroup, CommercialRadioAustralia, CommunityBroadcastingAssociationof Australia, FairfaxMedia,Free TV,MEAA, NewsCorpAustralia, NewsMediaWorks, SBSandTheWest Australian (collectively,theJointMediaOrganisations)–appreciatetheopportunitytomakeasubmissionto theAttorney-General’sDepartmentandtheDepartment ofCommunicationsregardingtheConsultation Paper –AccesstoRetainedDatainCivil Proceedings.
Inshort,we supporta continuationoftheprohibitiononcivil litigantsbeingabletoaccess telecommunicationsdatathatis heldbyaserviceprovidersolelyfor thepurpose of complyingwith the mandatorydataretentionregime.
Further,the prohibitionshouldcontinuewithoutanyexceptions forcivilcases tobeabletoaccessdata storedsolely forthepurposesofcomplyingwithdataretentionlaws.
Underminingfreedomof speech
As theDepartmentsareaware,mediaorganisations wereactivelyinvolved inthe processesassociatedwith theenactingbill, Telecommunications (InterceptionandAccess)Amendment(Data Retention)Bill 2014.
As wehaveexpressedinvariousconsultations and fora,thereisalreadyasignificantunderminingof freedomof speech by theaccessto,anduseof,thetelecommunications datajournalistsdatatoidentify sources withinthe parametersof potentialcriminalinvestigations. Wecannotcountenancethisbeing extendedtocivil proceedings.
Westatedthen, andrestatenow,thattherighttofreespeech, a free media andaccesstoinformationare fundamentaltoAustralia’smodern democraticsociety, asocietythat pridesitselfon openness,responsibility andaccountability.
Therearea numberofkeystoneswhicharefundamental in Australiatoensurejournalistsare abletodo their jobs.Theseinclude:
Theabilityforjournaliststogoabouttheir ordinarybusinessandreportinthepublicinterest withoutthereal riskof beingjailed;
Protectionof confidentialsources;
Protectionforwhistle-blowers;and
Anappropriatebalanceofpowerbetweenthejudiciary,theexecutive,thelegislatureandthe media.
Reasonswhy theprohibitionshouldbemaintained,withoutexceptions,include: Lackof justification
TheConsultation Paperlacksjustificationforcivilcases tobeable toaccesstelecommunications data. On this basis aloneexceptionsshouldnotbeconsidered.
So-called ‘safe guards’wouldbe significantlyundermined
Mediaorganisations raised concerns duringprevious consultations aboutaccess totelecommunicationsdata within the frameworkofcriminal proceedings particularlyregardingaccessingjournalists’ telecommunicationsdata toidentifysources.
Attemptsweremadetomollifyour concernsatthetimebyreferringto the‘safeguard’ of asignificantly reduced number ofagenciesthatwerepermittedto accesstelecommunications–fromapproximatelyeighty to twenty-onespecifiedcriminallawenforcementagencies. Additionalsafeguards weredescribed as
limitingthecircumstancesinwhichthoselawenforcementagenciesmaylawfullyaccessdata;and substantiallyexpandingthepowersof theCommonwealthOmbudsmanto oversightaccess to, anduse of telecommunicationsdataby thoselawenforcement agencies.
These‘safeguards’–whichwecontinuetohaveconcerns about–wouldbefurther exacerbatedif access to the data forcivil proceedingswasconsidered or included as an exceptionbyregulation.
Lackofcheckandbalance– soexclusionsandexceptions to theprohibitionshouldnotproceed
Ourconcerns areheightenedasconsiderationsof potential exceptions would notbesubjectto parliamentaryscrutiny, rather onlyrequireregulatoryamendment.A regulatory power toprovidecertain classesofcivil litigantswithaccess toretainedmetadatawouldrepresentafurthererosionofprotectionof confidential journalistsourcesandwhistle-blowers.
Again,wecannotcountenanceaccessingdatathat iskept solelyforthepurposesof national securityand crime being availablemorebroadlyandtherisksthisposes to theabilitytoreportin the public interest.
It isimportanttonoteherethattheGovernment implemented thejournalistinformationwarrantscheme pursuantto section180X of theTelecommunications (InterceptionandAccess)Act1979. Asthe Departmentsareaware, media organisations haveanumberof significantoutstandingconcerns regarding both theabilitytousejournalists’datatoidentifysourcesincludingwhistle-blowersand thejournalist informationwarrantscheme. Againstthebackdropof law enforcementrequiringawarranttoaccessdata for thepurposesofcriminal procedures, itisdifficulttocontemplatethechecksandbalancesfor data accessed forcivil proceedings.Again, onthis basiswecannotsupportconsiderationofanythingbuta prohibitionondataaccessfor civil proceedings.