Distortions do the nation a disservice

The discussion paper shows clearly what the Government wants and doesn't want. The proposals appear under three distinct headings:

A. Matters the Government wishes to progress

B. Matters the Government is considering

C. Matters on which the Government expressly seeks the views of the Committee.

It is quite plain that references to "tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years" are all in Part C – not Part A. The Government has said it is open to hearing arguments for and against. It is not in the category of reforms it intends currently to pursue.

So the question arises whether Breheny understood – or even read – the paper. Is the misrepresentation thereof accidental or deliberate?

A strong clue that this piece is simply party politicking is in the claim that "The last time the government attempted such an extraordinary invasion of privacy was 1986. That was when the Hawke Labor government tried to legislate a national identity card system."

Not true. One attempt since 1986 – there have been several others – was when the Howard Government rushed through the Intelligence Services Act2001 in response to the attacks on New York's twin towers.

Those laws received no public input, very little external advice, virtually no parliamentary scrutiny and – as far as online searches reveal – not a squeak from the IPA or The Herald Sun.

The Attorney-General affirmed in July, "Unlike the Howard Government, the Gillard Government wants to give the public a say in the development of any new laws, which is why I'm asking the Committee to conduct public hearings.

"National security legislation is important - but also important is the trust and confidence that Australians have in those laws."

Breheny asserts: "Nicola Roxon is being incredibly disingenuous. She distanced herself from the proposal in July. Then she gave a speech strongly in favour of the proposal in August. She followed that with a letter to the Herald Sun earlier this month claiming she hadn't made up her mind. Finally, she put up a YouTube video defending the proposals. It's strange behaviour for a busy minister who is yet to commit to the idea."