Government’s data retention scheme has clear majority support from Australians

New Lowy Institute polling shows that the Australian Government’s data retention (‘metadata’) laws, which passed the Parliament last night, have the support of a clear majority of Australians.

When asked whether ‘legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content’ is justified, 63% of the adult population say it is ‘justified as part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security’. Only one-third (33%) say it ‘goes too far in violating citizens’ privacy and is therefore not justified.’

Younger Australians (18-29) are more likely to say the legislation is not justified (47%), but this age group is divided about the policy, with 50% saying it is justified.

“Australians appear to accept some infringements on their privacy in the interests of fighting terrorism and protecting national security,” said Lowy Institute Executive Director Dr Michael Fullilove today. “This result is consistent with 2013 Lowy Institute polling which found that most Australians believed the government had struck about the right balance between protecting the rights of citizens and fighting terrorism.”  

This result is drawn from the forthcoming 2015 Lowy Institute Poll, the full version of which will be released in June 2015. The Lowy Institute Poll is based on a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,200 Australian adults between 20 February and 8 March 2015. The Poll’s error margin is approximately +/- 2.8%.

The question put to survey respondents was: Thinking now about national security and telecommunications data. As part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security, the Australian government is introducing legislation which will require Australian telecommunications companies to retain data about communications such as phone calls, emails and internet usage, but not their content. Do you personally think this is justified as part of the effort to combat terrorism and protect national security, or do you think this goes too far in violating citizens’ privacy and is therefore not justified?