The deal struck between the Coalition and Labor to better protect journalist’s metadata with a ‘journalist information warrant’ hurdle has been passed as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2015.
The most promising feature of the Bill’s additional thirty pages is the role of Public Interest Advocate, making submissions to at least limit the extent of surveillance allowed under a warrant.
Attorney General George Brandis supports the balance stuck between security interests and protection of privacy and says about the Bill,
‘It does contain safeguards that were not there before. It is in the Government’s view – shared.’
However, the lack of independence and reach of the Public Interest Advocate is attracting criticism from legislators and privacy advocates.
An Advocate appointed by the Prime Minister’s office is dismissible at any time and will be privy to the same information the security agency chooses to provide the government-appointed decision maker. They are not allowed to contact the relevant journalist without attracting a 2 year jail sentence and the Bill’s lack of clarity has left many unable to decipher exactly who the Public Interest Advocate is meant to be representing.
The decision maker’s test is whether ‘the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the source.’
The Public Interest Advocate’s submissions have no enforceability under the Bill but are one of six factors the decision maker considers before issuing a warrant.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says he is unable to see how one can be an effective devil’s advocate under the Bill’s conditions.
‘If the Government and the Opposition think that the public interest advocate amendments that they put together in haste will do the job, then they’re sadly deluded.’
In the wider context of a Bill that compels telephone companies to retain two years worth of every Australian customer’s metadata to be searchable by security agencies and the Police, the inadequacy of the Public Interest Advocate’s protection of journalist’s metadata does not bode well for a public expecting future Government measures to protect their privacy.
ACMA reports over 500, 000 authorisations granting security agencies access to Australian phone customer’s metadata in the 2014 financial year.
Pickwickian 