In February I (@bengrubb) asked the Australian Federal Police a number of questions in

relation to how many times it has accessed Australian journalists telecommunications data
in order to identify sources. Below are the questions and answers.
1. How many times over the past three years has the AFP sought access to Australian
journalists' metadata - call records or otherwise - in an attempt to uncover the source of
unauthorised leaks?
The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA) proscribes the disclosure of
stored communication information except only in certain circumstances (eg court purposes). The
AFP is therefore not lawfully authorised to provide detail of metadata authorisations for any person,
including journalists.
2. Is it only the AFP that enforces Section 70 or can other agencies - like state and territory
police and ASIO - also access journalists records under it if there is an unauthorised leak?

As Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 is Commonwealth legislation, the AFP is the Australian
law enforcement body that primarily conducts investigations regarding offences against the Act.

Other jurisdictions are able to lay charges with offences contrary to the Crimes Act 1914 if
they determine it is appropriate to do so.

Questions on metadata authorisations by other agencies should be directed to those

agencies.
3. Does the AFP routinely access journalists', politicians' and public servants' metadata
after receiving referrals about leaks?

As a matter of standard practice, the AFP does not comment on investigative methodology.

However, the AFP's approach to seeking telecommunications metadata seeks to achieve a

balance between security, investigative requirements and privacy.

Access to metadata is only granted under authority enshrined in legislation and is subject to
strict controls. It must be necessary for the conduct of an investigation.
4. A hearing a few years back [it was] revealed that "less than five" MPs have had their
metadata accessed. Can I please have updated figures on this?

In the Senate Estimates hearing on 18 November 2013, the Commissioner provided a

general answer to the Senators question to provide some context to the breadth of authorisation
orders under Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 applied to members of
parliament.

In order to preserve the balance established by the Telecommunications (Interception and

Access) Act 1979 between accountability, the integrity of investigations and the privacy of
individuals, the AFP is unable to disclose specific information in relation to the interception of or
access to telecommunications.
5. Has the AFP accessed the call records of Australian journalists reporting on asylum
seeker issues? Will it do this? How many times has this been done?

Refer the response to question 1.

As a matter of standard practice, the AFP does not comment on investigative methodology.

Follow up question
Thank you for getting back to me.
I must point to the fact I am only asking for figures in questions 1, 4 and 5.
Section 186 of the Act sets out that you can in fact reveal the number of authorisations made:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/s186.html
In fact the AFP, along with other agencies, does this every year.
Section 181A, 181B and 182 do not prevent the AFP from disclosing a breakdown of the figures.
Those sections only prevent the AFP from disclosing the actual telecommunications data collected
under an authorisation and who the AFP targeted specifically i.e. a person's name or a news
organisation.
I am not asking for the AFP to disclose stored communication information or a person's name.
I am also not asking for "specific information" that might reveal who it is that has been subjected to
an authorisation.
Could I please request again that you consider providing me with the figures?
The UK, a Western jurisdiction comparable to us, disclosed recently that there were 600
applications against journalists over a period of three years. I am hoping that you could provide
similar information. Can you?
The same applies to authorisations take out on politicians and public servants, as per the original
email.
If this cannot be provided, please explain under what law and subsection you are unable to provide
this information.
ANSWER TO FOLLOW UP QUESTION
Section 186 or the Telecommunications (Intercept and Access) Act 1979 provides a legislative
obligation for agencies to report to the Attorney General on telecommunications authorisations.
The Department of the Attorney General produces an annual report which contains statistics of
metadata authorisations and telephone intercept warrants. The most recent publicly available
report can be accessed using the below link:
http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/
TelecommunicationsInterceptionandAccessAct1979AnnualReportfortheyearending30June2012.as
px
The AFP is unable to disclose specific information in relation to authorisations or warrants issued
under either the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The relevant section
precluding the disclosure of authorisations is section 181B (emphasis added):
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses information; and
(b) the information is about any of the following:

(i) whether an authorisation under Division 4 (other than under section 178A) has been, or is being,
sought;
(ii) the making of such an authorisation;
(iii) the existence or nonexistence of such an authorisation;
(iv) the revocation of such an authorisation;
(v) the notification of such a revocation
Further, section 186(4) specifies that the information provided within the report to the Attorney must
not be made in a manner that is likely to enable the identification of a person. Any disclosure of the
profession of a person could lead to such an identification.