Division
The majority vote in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-08-09.16.1) to agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read it a second time. This means that they can now consider it in greater detail. ### What does this bill do? According to the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7070_ems_9e7524df-0ac6-48c4-afc7-d37b07d41e97%22;rec=0) for the bill: > *The Bill amends sections 65 and 137 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) to ensure information obtained under section 11A, 11B and 11C warrants (‘foreign intelligence information’) can be communicated, used and recorded to protect Australia’s national security.* > > *Schedule 1 of the Bill will clarify the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia in accordance with the proper performance of their functions. Foreign intelligence information obtained under the relevant warrants plays a critical role in enabling intelligence agencies to identify threats to Australia’s national security. The communication and use of such information is critical to identifying and mitigating those threats. These amendments ensure that the Attorney-General can continue to approve the communication and use of foreign intelligence information in a manner that is appropriate to address threats to Australia’s national security.* > > *The Bill does not seek to alter or expand the information that may be intercepted under foreign intelligence warrants under sections 11A, 11B or 11C. Rather, review and consideration of the provisions has identified the need for greater certainty about the sharing of foreign intelligence information. The amendments would replace the requirement for the Attorney-General to approve the persons who can receive the information, as this may not be
Senate, 2023-08-09. affirmative: ayes 30, noes 10.
Question
The majority vote in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-08-09.16.1) to agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read it a second time. This means that they can now consider it in greater detail. ### What does this bill do? According to the [explanatory memorandum](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr7070_ems_9e7524df-0ac6-48c4-afc7-d37b07d41e97%22;rec=0) for the bill: > *The Bill amends sections 65 and 137 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) to ensure information obtained under section 11A, 11B and 11C warrants (‘foreign intelligence information’) can be communicated, used and recorded to protect Australia’s national security.* > > *Schedule 1 of the Bill will clarify the ability of agencies to communicate foreign intelligence information about threats to Australia in accordance with the proper performance of their functions. Foreign intelligence information obtained under the relevant warrants plays a critical role in enabling intelligence agencies to identify threats to Australia’s national security. The communication and use of such information is critical to identifying and mitigating those threats. These amendments ensure that the Attorney-General can continue to approve the communication and use of foreign intelligence information in a manner that is appropriate to address threats to Australia’s national security.* > > *The Bill does not seek to alter or expand the information that may be intercepted under foreign intelligence warrants under sections 11A, 11B or 11C. Rather, review and consideration of the provisions has identified the need for greater certainty about the sharing of foreign intelligence information. The amendments would replace the requirement for the Attorney-General to approve the persons who can receive the information, as this may not be
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.