Division
Scott Ludlam I foreshadowed this amendment last night. In a way, the amendment of Senator Leyonhelm that we just voted on really was our fallback. This is probably the most important amendment that the Australian Greens will move during this debate. It is colloquially known as the get-a-warrant amendment. We strongly believe that in 1979 when this act was passed into law that if we had had the multitude of devices, data types and platforms that we have today, the drafters who were considering the substantial overall of telecommunications interception legislation as they were in 1979 would have looked around the field and said, 'You can tap people's phone, you can read people's email, you can track their movements around the landscape, and you can map of their social networks and find everything about their lives. These things will all be covered by a warrant and what will not be covered by a warrant is simple subscriber data so that agencies can very rapidly establish who owns the handset, who holds a particular prescription for a particular service. And so we would have ended up with the same two-tiered system that we have today, but those invasive forms of data access—whether they be tapping the phone call or reading your location as you move around the place—would have been within the warranted regime. I have no doubt about that at all. What we have seen, quite frankly, is the failure of the law to keep up with the march of technology. We still have a fairly robust warranted regime. Last night, Senator Rhiannon pointed out some of its failings, and we are certainly aware of those. We have a robust warranted regime and I think the number is about 4,700. We do not know how many ASIO applies for because that is done through a different process, but the entire law enforcement and anticorruption community around the country has about 4,700 warrants a year. But, as I have said more times than I care to remember, there are 750-odd thousand applications for warrantless a
Senate, 2015-03-26. negative: ayes 15, noes 33.
Question
Scott Ludlam I foreshadowed this amendment last night. In a way, the amendment of Senator Leyonhelm that we just voted on really was our fallback. This is probably the most important amendment that the Australian Greens will move during this debate. It is colloquially known as the get-a-warrant amendment. We strongly believe that in 1979 when this act was passed into law that if we had had the multitude of devices, data types and platforms that we have today, the drafters who were considering the substantial overall of telecommunications interception legislation as they were in 1979 would have looked around the field and said, 'You can tap people's phone, you can read people's email, you can track their movements around the landscape, and you can map of their social networks and find everything about their lives. These things will all be covered by a warrant and what will not be covered by a warrant is simple subscriber data so that agencies can very rapidly establish who owns the handset, who holds a particular prescription for a particular service. And so we would have ended up with the same two-tiered system that we have today, but those invasive forms of data access—whether they be tapping the phone call or reading your location as you move around the place—would have been within the warranted regime. I have no doubt about that at all. What we have seen, quite frankly, is the failure of the law to keep up with the march of technology. We still have a fairly robust warranted regime. Last night, Senator Rhiannon pointed out some of its failings, and we are certainly aware of those. We have a robust warranted regime and I think the number is about 4,700. We do not know how many ASIO applies for because that is done through a different process, but the entire law enforcement and anticorruption community around the country has about 4,700 warrants a year. But, as I have said more times than I care to remember, there are 750-odd thousand applications for warrantless a
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.