Division Description Changes — Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — 20th Sep 2007

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2007-09-20#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-12-19 13:05:23	Title ~~Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Judicial requirements~~ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Require judicial warrants Description The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1) introduced by Senator [Natasha Stott Despoja](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were rejected. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [Surveillance Devices Act](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/)".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1), after 7:38 pm. ) ~~_Background to the bill_~~ The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743) introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [Telecommunications Act 1997](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/) to the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/). These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22) (141 KB).) The majority disagreed that law enforcement agencies should have to get a judicial warrant before accessing telecommunications data about a communication (rather than its actual content). This data includes data on who is sending and receiving a particular communication, the date and time it was sent and how long a communication lasted. This requirement for a warrant was proposed by Senator [Natasha Stott Despoja](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/natasha_stott_despoja) (see her [explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1) of this amendment). ### Background to the bill The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743) introduces a second group of recommendations made by the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcement provisions from the [Telecommunications Act 1997](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/) to the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/). These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data (read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd010).)
senate vote 2007-09-20#3 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:53	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm. ) ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).) The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1) introduced by Senator [Natasha Stott Despoja](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were rejected. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [Surveillance Devices Act](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/)".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1), after 7:38 pm. ) _Background to the bill_ The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743) introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [Telecommunications Act 1997](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/) to the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/). These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22) (141 KB).)
senate vote 2007-09-20#3 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:34	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".[1] The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm. ) ''Background to the bill'' The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2] The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).) ~~''References''~~ * [1] Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).
senate vote 2007-09-20#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-08-15 10:47:35	Title ~~Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee - Judicial requirements~~ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Judicial requirements Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".[1] ''Background to the bill'' The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the Telecommunications Act 1997 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2] The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2] ''References'' * [1] Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB). * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).
senate vote 2007-09-20#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-08-15 10:45:23	Title ~~Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee~~ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee - Judicial requirements Description <p pwmotiontext="moved">That the amendments (<b>Senator Stott Despoja’s</b>) be agreed to.</p> The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected. The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".[1] ''Background to the bill'' The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the Telecommunications Act 1997 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2] ''References'' * [1] Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).

Change

Division

senate vote 2007-09-20#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-12-19 13:05:23

Title

~~Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Judicial requirements~~
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Require judicial warrants

Description

The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1) introduced by Senator [Natasha Stott Despoja](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were rejected.
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [Surveillance Devices Act](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/)".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1), after 7:38 pm. )
~~_Background to the bill_~~
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743) introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [Telecommunications Act 1997](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/) to the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/). These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22) (141 KB).)
The majority disagreed that law enforcement agencies should have to get a judicial warrant before accessing telecommunications data *about* a communication (rather than its actual content). This data includes data on who is sending and receiving a particular communication, the date and time it was sent and how long a communication lasted.
This requirement for a warrant was proposed by Senator [Natasha Stott Despoja](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/natasha_stott_despoja) (see her [explanation](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1) of this amendment).
### Background to the bill
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743) introduces a second group of recommendations made by the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcement provisions from the [Telecommunications Act 1997](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/) to the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/).
These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data (read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd010).)

senate vote 2007-09-20#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:53

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected.
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm. )
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).)
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1) introduced by Senator [Natasha Stott Despoja](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that they were rejected.
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [Surveillance Devices Act](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/)".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1), after 7:38 pm. )
_Background to the bill_
The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743) introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications](http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx) (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [Telecommunications Act 1997](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/) to the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/). These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22) (141 KB).)

senate vote 2007-09-20#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:34

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected.
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".[1]
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".(Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm. )
''Background to the bill''
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2]
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).)
~~''References''~~
* [1] Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).

senate vote 2007-09-20#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-08-15 10:47:35

Title

~~Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee - Judicial requirements~~
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Judicial requirements

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected.
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".[1]
''Background to the bill''
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the Telecommunications Act 1997 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2]
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/ Telecommunications Act 1997] to the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taaa1979410/ Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979]. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2]
''References''
* [1] Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).

senate vote 2007-09-20#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-08-15 10:45:23

Title

~~Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee~~
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee - Judicial requirements

Description

<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the amendments (<b>Senator Stott Despoja’s</b>) be agreed to.</p>
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2007-09-20.260.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Natasha_Stott_Despoja&mpc=Senate&house=senate Natasha Stott Despoja], which means that they were rejected.
The amendments would have introduced a requirement for judicial warrants. Senator Stott Despoja explained that because the access to prospective telecommunications data "has the potential to allow real-time monitoring of location information" then "that access should be subject to the same scrutiny and judicial oversight as applications for surveillance devices under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda2004210/ Surveillance Devices Act]".[1]
''Background to the bill''
The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2743 bill] introduces a second tranche of recommendations made by the [http://www.ag.gov.au/Publications/Pages/BlunnreportofthereviewoftheregulationofaccesstocommunicationsAugust2005.aspx Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications] (known as the Blunn Report). In particular, the bill transfers key security and law enforcements provisions from the Telecommunications Act 1997 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. These provisions relate to access to telecommunications data, which is information about a communication rather than its content and includes data on the sending and receiving parties, and the date, time and duration of the communication. The bill also proposes a new two-tier access regime for access to historic and ‘prospective’ telecommunications data.[2]
''References''
* [1] Read Senator Stott Despoja's full explanation and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2007-09-20.256.1 here], after 7:38 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6/upload_binary/ZYYN6.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/billsdgs/ZYYN6%22 bills digest] (141 KB).