Division
Scott Ludlam I have a very quick question for the government and Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who looks as though she might have been thrown in the deep end. Is Senator Fierravanti-Wells aware of whether the Attorney-General will be gracing us with his presence this morning? Concetta Fierravanti-Wells Yes, the Attorney-General is on his way. _(Quorum formed)_ Scott Ludlam I thank the Attorney for joining us. Probably Senator Xenophon will reserve his right to ask general overview questions. I ran through most of mine last night so I am proposing to start working through the amendments. I also offer a note of thanks to the clerks, who probably worked all night to give us the running sheet for a very complicated set of amendments from a few different sources. I now seek leave to move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (4) on sheet 7669 together. Leave granted. I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 14), omit "specified in or under section 187AA", substitute "specified in section 187AA". (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 1) to page 9 (line 2), omit subsections 187AA(2) to (5), substitute: (2) For the purposes of items 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the table in subsection (1), 2 or more communications that together constitute a single communications session are taken to be a single communication. These amendments are identical to those of Senator Leyonhjelm, so presumably he will add some commentary as well. This debate has been somewhat bogged down from the very beginning in definitions of the kind of data that the government wants telecommunications carriers to collect. Everybody would be well aware that the Attorney did not help his cause at all by not being clear, but that is not a confusion that is isolated to the Attorney-General alone. The discussion has been bogged down in definitions of metadata, which is a phrase that is not even really a term of art in the telecommunications sector. It can mean pretty much what people want it to mean. It is extraordinary, firstly
Senate, 2015-03-25. negative: ayes 14, noes 33.
Question
Scott Ludlam I have a very quick question for the government and Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who looks as though she might have been thrown in the deep end. Is Senator Fierravanti-Wells aware of whether the Attorney-General will be gracing us with his presence this morning? Concetta Fierravanti-Wells Yes, the Attorney-General is on his way. _(Quorum formed)_ Scott Ludlam I thank the Attorney for joining us. Probably Senator Xenophon will reserve his right to ask general overview questions. I ran through most of mine last night so I am proposing to start working through the amendments. I also offer a note of thanks to the clerks, who probably worked all night to give us the running sheet for a very complicated set of amendments from a few different sources. I now seek leave to move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (4) on sheet 7669 together. Leave granted. I move: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 14), omit "specified in or under section 187AA", substitute "specified in section 187AA". (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 1) to page 9 (line 2), omit subsections 187AA(2) to (5), substitute: (2) For the purposes of items 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the table in subsection (1), 2 or more communications that together constitute a single communications session are taken to be a single communication. These amendments are identical to those of Senator Leyonhjelm, so presumably he will add some commentary as well. This debate has been somewhat bogged down from the very beginning in definitions of the kind of data that the government wants telecommunications carriers to collect. Everybody would be well aware that the Attorney did not help his cause at all by not being clear, but that is not a confusion that is isolated to the Attorney-General alone. The discussion has been bogged down in definitions of metadata, which is a phrase that is not even really a term of art in the telecommunications sector. It can mean pretty much what people want it to mean. It is extraordinary, firstly
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.