Division
Scott Ludlam I believe the amendment should be agreed to, so I commend it to the chamber. For the benefit of senators, when the debate was interrupted before question time we were discussing the issue of whether it should be a two-year mandatory data retention period, if it is mandatory at all, or, in conflicting proposals, three months or six months. We had spoken of diminishing returns and the fact that most data is nowhere near two years old in the jurisdictions for which we have information and that we do not have information in Australia; and thus, like so much of the rest of this policy, we are proceeding on the basis of anecdote rather than evidence. I do not propose to repeat myself because we still have a long way to go, so I commend Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 7669 to the chamber. Question negatived. David Leyonhjelm I withdraw LDP amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 7661. I move amendment (7) on sheet 7661: (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 5), after section 187C, insert: 187CA Information or documents must be kept in Australia A service provider must take all reasonable steps to ensure that information or a document that the provider must keep under section 187A is: (a) kept in Australia; and (b) kept by a body incorporated, owned and operated in Australia. The rationale for this amendment is widespread industry disquiet that sensitive, personal information will be stored offshore in jurisdictions with more flexible approaches to privacy and security. My party, the Liberal Democrats, dislikes protectionism of any sort, and it is a sign of how bad this bill is that I have even considered an amendment of this kind. But it probably is in the national interest not to have all our personal data bundled up and stored somewhere else overseas, very likely in China because that is where it is cheaper. It would be a honeypot for not just our own intrusive snoops and bullies but everyone else's as well. Of course, I recognise that corporate owner
Senate, 2015-03-25. negative: ayes 13, noes 33.
Question
Scott Ludlam I believe the amendment should be agreed to, so I commend it to the chamber. For the benefit of senators, when the debate was interrupted before question time we were discussing the issue of whether it should be a two-year mandatory data retention period, if it is mandatory at all, or, in conflicting proposals, three months or six months. We had spoken of diminishing returns and the fact that most data is nowhere near two years old in the jurisdictions for which we have information and that we do not have information in Australia; and thus, like so much of the rest of this policy, we are proceeding on the basis of anecdote rather than evidence. I do not propose to repeat myself because we still have a long way to go, so I commend Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 7669 to the chamber. Question negatived. David Leyonhjelm I withdraw LDP amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 7661. I move amendment (7) on sheet 7661: (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 5), after section 187C, insert: 187CA Information or documents must be kept in Australia A service provider must take all reasonable steps to ensure that information or a document that the provider must keep under section 187A is: (a) kept in Australia; and (b) kept by a body incorporated, owned and operated in Australia. The rationale for this amendment is widespread industry disquiet that sensitive, personal information will be stored offshore in jurisdictions with more flexible approaches to privacy and security. My party, the Liberal Democrats, dislikes protectionism of any sort, and it is a sign of how bad this bill is that I have even considered an amendment of this kind. But it probably is in the national interest not to have all our personal data bundled up and stored somewhere else overseas, very likely in China because that is where it is cheaper. It would be a honeypot for not just our own intrusive snoops and bullies but everyone else's as well. Of course, I recognise that corporate owner
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.