Turnbull gets his way at G20 on cyber terrorism

Malcolm Turnbull had several reasons to be restless on his flight to Hamburg last Wednesday.

Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull with French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Trogneux in Paris on the weekend. Pictures: Kym Smith

Malcolm Turnbull had several reasons to be restless on his flight to Hamburg last Wednesday.

Who knew what would happen when Donald Trump stepped into the room for his first appearance at a G20 summit? And what could be done about China’s apparent ­reluctance to rein in its belligerent ally North Korea?

Deep divisions over trade and climate change also threatened to plunge the conference into the most fractious meeting since its ­inception.

What the Prime Minister was focused on, however, was the draft section of the proposed G20 communique that dealt with terrorism.

Turnbull didn’t like what he was reading. The language wasn’t strong enough and didn’t reflect conversations he had had with world leaders in the lead-up to the meeting — namely eliminating virtual safe havens for terrorists, the ungoverned spaces deep within the internet, and working with the tech sector on his pet project, ­encryption.

A call was made from the plane to the Turnbull’s team of officials already in Hamburg with an ­urgent request that they begin working on a revised wording of what would be paragraph 20 of the communique. Turnbull sent through suggested amendments.

There was every reason to ­assume Australia would play little more than a backseat role at this G20, considering the high stakes at play between the superpowers of China, Russia and the US, let alone have a veto on a particular wording in a document that would reflect the consensus view of all member countries.

The final wording on the reference to terrorism would ultimately be a test of Turnbull’s influence.

“He recognised many months ago that there was a need for international consensus that the internet should not be an ungoverned space for terrorist activity,” an ­official told The Australian.

“He also recognised that terrorism generally was at least one area where a consensus might be reached at the summit.”

Turnbull knew there would be stiff resistance to the threat of regulation, particularly on encryption. Europe, given the libertarian tendencies of some leaders, presented a significant challenge. Even Theresa May would need convincing, despite the British Conservative government under David Cameron having led the way on cyber regulation only a year ago.

The odds were stacked against the Prime Minister. And so began the private lobbying.

On June 14, Turnbull called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and sought his support.

Trudeau had concerns about privacy but came around to Turnbull’s view that the law had to apply equally online as it did off, that it was about collaboration with industry, transparency with the public and that a significant discussion was required.

The next day, he called ­German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who as chairwoman of the G20 this year would be critical to mounting the case. It is understood that she was immediately supportive.

Then on July 3, five days before the summit, he spoke to Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, who was this year’s chairman of the Group of Seven.

From Gentiloni, Turnbull ­managed to gather his own intelligence on what the views were of the G7 nations — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain and the US — on the issue of ungoverned cyberspace, the internet, and ­encryption.

Gentiloni was said to strongly agree something needed to be done to push internet companies to co-operate, under the warning of regulation.

Turnbull’s argument, which he had made publicly in Australia in the weeks leading up to the G20, was that it was not about ­government interference or ­intrusion but simply an ability to inform the public that terrorists were using the internet to recruit and plan ­attacks, and that ­transparent collaboration with ­industry was ­required to do ­everything possible to keep the public safe.

On Saturday morning before the final sessions of the summit he held a press conference to confirm that the new statement had been adopted.

“Last night the G20 leaders agreed for the first time very ­clearly that the rule of law must prevail online as well as offline,” he told reporters in the courtyard of the Hyatt Hotel, which was also the G20 base for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“In the lead-up to this summit ... I’ve been talking to other leaders about the importance of ensuring that the internet is not used as a ­vehicle for spreading terrorist propaganda and recruiting people to the Islamist cause.

“But also that the encryption basis of the internet’s messaging and communications platforms are not used as a means of enabling terrorists to hide in the dark where the law cannot reach them.

“This is a complicated issue and contentious in some respects. But it’s good to see that as a result of the arguments that we’ve placed and the unanimity that we’ve built up with other leaders and other nations, that you’ve seen strong language that now enables us to go forward and say to the tech ­companies, say to Silicon Valley and its emulators, ‘you’ve got to work with us to solve this problem. We cannot allow the internet to be an ungoverned space’.”

Turnbull ultimately got his way, having told the leaders’ ­meeting that he had been an early commercial investor in the ­internet sector, which in another context could have suggested he was ­saying that he understood it more than anyone else in the room. Stronger wording was adopted throughout the statement, and the bulk of paragraph 20, including the final two sentences, were ­incorporated solely because of Turnbull’s insistence that the G20 take it seriously.

“And so you see that in ­paragraph 20 of the statement on counter-terrorism, it’s very strong language, and I’m very pleased that Australia’s been able to play such a leading and influential role in ensuring that we get that, bringing together with one mind, standing together to defeat terrorism,” Turnbull said.

The strong wording, which he referred to as the “Australia clause” was: “Appropriate filtering, detecting and removing of content that incites terrorist acts is crucial in this respect.

“We encourage ­industry to continue investing in technology and human capital to aid in the ­detection as well as swift and ­permanent removal of ­terrorist content. In line with the expectations of our peoples we also ­encourage collaboration with ­industry to provide lawful and non-arbitrary access to available information where access is necessary for the protection of ­national security against terrorist threats. We affirm that the rule of law applies online as well as it does offline.”

Significantly, the original wording was intended to be part of the general communique, but the strength of the revised wording ­resulted in the leaders agreeing to the terror statement being separate to the communique.

Merkel noted Turnbull’s contribution in her remarks at the end of the retreat and multiple leaders referenced his leadership during side meetings.

But the gambit wasn’t without significant political risk. Failure to reach a consensus would have been seen as a failure for Turnbull personally and confirmation that Australia under his leadership had no clout. What practical effect the ­communique and the “Australia clause” have on cyber space and terrorism will depend entirely on whether any country is prepared to do anything about it.