Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Sunrise -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) alarmed. Thank you for bringing us up to date, right across the country. Cheers. A controversial plan text messages and online use to keep and store your emails, for two years has Federal Government support. Attorney-General Nicola Roxon says need to access the data police and security agencies in order to do their jobs properly. and text messages She also believes access email leading to criminal arrests. could provide critical evidence has plenty of opposition, Not surprisingly, the proposal Scott Ludlam including from Greens Senator who joins us now from Perth. by unjustified paranoia? Scott, is this plan driven Of catching crims or terrorists? I think what it is driven by, ultimately if you go back to it are legitimate concerns for law enforcement. If enforcement. If you go back to basics there is a legitimate need to update police powers. The problem is I see it as overkill. The have been asked, " have been asked, "Give us I see it as overkill. The police everything." And this is what come out with. Unfortunately, it is everything." And this is what we've completely out of balance now and there is no commenceiert privacy protections. But the authorities have put in an ambit claim, the government said yes, ratter than saying hey, maybe pull back a bit. How can we be guaranteed our e-mail and text exchanges won't be accessed by hackers? They seem to get into government data bases all We can't guarantee it at all. We are government data bases all the time? creating enormously valuable data sets, because you are talking about texts and e-mail. Smart phones will down load information down to 10s of metres. It is prive data, not just your calls and e-mails but the cloud of meta data that surrounds everything we do online. Do we know what agencies will have access to the e-mails and texts? Will it just be the thin edge of the wedge? Look, a huge number of agencies already have access to this kine of stuff. It is just a lot of it isn't being stored. So, for example, you assume the police, the federal police, but also the Tax Office, agencies and a large number of other also the Tax Office, welfare agencies are already accessing the limited number of material that exists, thus far. So what would you like to see happen? I would like to see us go back to basics. For 100 years in democracies, the idea has basically prevailed that if you want, inagencies want to snoop on people's private activity, you need a warrant from a magistrate, you need to be targetting a serious crime and it needs to be named individuals. What we are seeing here is proposal to flow a surveillance

blanket across the entire population, real-time Millie second surveillance of every person in case we turn out to be criminals. I would like to see a couple of things. The committee needs to do work with no further preemptive comments from the Attorney-General and everyone else because it is disrespectful from the parliamentary committee. But the second thing is we go back to basics. What are the tools the police agencies need and give them the tools but no further. I think it is highly significant that the Victorian police commissioner said these powers will be Victorian police commissioner has characteristic of a police state. OK, Scott, keep us up to date on it.