Division
David Leyonhjelm I move LDP amendment (9) on sheet 7661: (9) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 15), after Part 1, insert: Part 1A—Amendments relating to authorisations _Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979_ 1AA Section 178 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 178 Authorisations for access to existing information or documents 1AB Subsection 178(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) The authorised officer must not make the authorisation unless he or she is satisfied that the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of a serious contravention. 1AC Section 179 Repeal the section. 1AD Paragraph 186(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph. This amendment is designed to ensure that access to privacy-intrusive telecommunications data is permitted only for serious crimes. The bill was clearly intended with a national security remit: serious crimes. Any extension beyond terrorism and national security should only be to crimes that are in the upper range of seriousness in all Australian jurisdictions, such as child pornography offences. I do not wish to see metadata used to pursue trivialities. That is what happened in the UK, with the RIPA law. The thought of spying on people for their unpaid rates or the heinous crime of comparing petrol prices is ridiculous. That is very likely the main use to which this metadata will be put, unless this amendment is passed. George Brandis We had this debate last night in the early committee stages, and I fundamentally disagree with what Senator Leyonhjelm has said. Senator Leyonhjelm is fearful that the authorities will devote their resources to pursuing relatively trivial or inconsequential offences or regulatory breaches. It is not conceivable, as a matter of common sense, that they would do so. The purpose of this legislation is to enable the capacity of the law enforcement, the national security agencies and, in addition, the principal economic regulators—the ACCC and ASIC—to investigate and apprehend serious c
Senate, 2015-03-25. negative: ayes 16, noes 33.
Question
David Leyonhjelm I move LDP amendment (9) on sheet 7661: (9) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 15), after Part 1, insert: Part 1A—Amendments relating to authorisations _Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979_ 1AA Section 178 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 178 Authorisations for access to existing information or documents 1AB Subsection 178(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) The authorised officer must not make the authorisation unless he or she is satisfied that the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of a serious contravention. 1AC Section 179 Repeal the section. 1AD Paragraph 186(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph. This amendment is designed to ensure that access to privacy-intrusive telecommunications data is permitted only for serious crimes. The bill was clearly intended with a national security remit: serious crimes. Any extension beyond terrorism and national security should only be to crimes that are in the upper range of seriousness in all Australian jurisdictions, such as child pornography offences. I do not wish to see metadata used to pursue trivialities. That is what happened in the UK, with the RIPA law. The thought of spying on people for their unpaid rates or the heinous crime of comparing petrol prices is ridiculous. That is very likely the main use to which this metadata will be put, unless this amendment is passed. George Brandis We had this debate last night in the early committee stages, and I fundamentally disagree with what Senator Leyonhjelm has said. Senator Leyonhjelm is fearful that the authorities will devote their resources to pursuing relatively trivial or inconsequential offences or regulatory breaches. It is not conceivable, as a matter of common sense, that they would do so. The purpose of this legislation is to enable the capacity of the law enforcement, the national security agencies and, in addition, the principal economic regulators—the ACCC and ASIC—to investigate and apprehend serious c
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.