|
senate vote 2006-03-30#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:09
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".(Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.
)B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.(Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
)''Background to the bill''The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].)- The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1) introduced by Labor Senator [Joe Ludwig](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".(Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2), after 11:48 am. )
- B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.(Read more about B-party interceptions in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102). )
- _Background to the bill_
- The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506) was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102).)
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:53
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".[1]- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".(Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.
)
B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.[2]- B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.(Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
)
- ''Background to the bill''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[3]- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].)
''References''* [1] Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.* [2] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].* [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-15 09:21:42
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".[1]
B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[2]- B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications made by a third party, that is, by a person who is not suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime but whose communications may be relevant to an investigation. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them by the person of interest.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[3]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.
- * [2] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-15 09:17:56
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".[1]
B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[2]- B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[3]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.
- * [2] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-14 16:15:54
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".[1]
- B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[3]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.
* [2] Read more about B-party warrants or interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].- * [2] Read more about B-party interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-14 16:15:35
|
Title
Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee - B-party interceptions- Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee — B—party interceptions
Description
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party warrants so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review—that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".[1]- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party interceptions so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review-that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".[1]
B-party warrants are warrants to intercept communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[2]- B-party interceptions are interceptions of communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[3]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.
- * [2] Read more about B-party warrants or interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
* [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].- * [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|
|
senate vote 2006-03-30#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-08-14 16:05:42
|
Title
Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee- Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee - B-party interceptions
Description
<p pwmotiontext="moved">That, as identified in the body of my report:</p>- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-03-30.76.1 amendments] introduced by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Joe_Ludwig&mpc=Senate&house=senate Joe Ludwig], which means that they were rejected. The amendments related to B-party warrants so that they "have protections consistent with the Blunn review—that is, that they go to ensuring that they only be utilised in limited and controlled circumstances".[1]
- B-party warrants are warrants to intercept communications that are believed to be relevant to the investigation of a person (the B-party) other than the person suspected of involvement in a prescribed crime. That B-party may only be a conduit for the relevant communication and may not be aware of the use being made of them.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2506 bill] was introduced to implement some of the recommendations of the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report) in order to, among other things, create a warrant regime to allow access to stored communications held by a telecommunications carrier and enable the interception of communications of a person known to communicate with the person of interest.[3]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read Senator Ludwig's full explanation of his amendments and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-03-30.3.2 here], after 11:48 am.
- * [2] Read more about B-party warrants or interceptions in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
- * [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0506/06bd102 bills digest].
|