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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2013-02-27#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:18:00

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-27.109.1 motion] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was rejected. The motion was:
  • ''That the Senate—''
  • ''(a) notes that:''
  • ''(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security] inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,''(Read the report from that inquiry [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm here].)
  • ''(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and''
  • ''(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and''
  • ''(b) calls on the Government to:''
  • ''(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and''
  • ''(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights human rights] standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.''
  • References
  • The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-27.109.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was rejected. The motion was:
  • _That the Senate—_
  • _(a) notes that:_
  • _(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the [Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security) inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,_(Read the report from that inquiry [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm).)
  • _(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and_
  • _(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and_
  • _(b) calls on the Government to:_
  • _(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and_
  • _(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode [human rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy._
  • References
senate vote 2013-02-27#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:03

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-27.109.1 motion] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was rejected. The motion was:
  • ''That the Senate—''
  • ''(a) notes that:''
  • ''(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security] inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,''[1]
  • ''(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security] inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,''(Read the report from that inquiry [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm here].)
  • ''(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and''
  • ''(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and''
  • ''(b) calls on the Government to:''
  • ''(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and''
  • ''(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights human rights] standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.''
  • References
  • * [1] Read the report from that inquiry [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm here].
senate vote 2013-02-27#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-05-15 15:49:11

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-27.109.1 motion] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was rejected.
  • The motion was:
  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-27.109.1 motion] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was rejected. The motion was:
  • ''That the Senate—''
  • ''(a) notes that:''
  • ''(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security] inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,''[1]
  • ''(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and''
  • ''(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and''
  • ''(b) calls on the Government to:''
  • ''(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and''
  • ''(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights human rights] standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.''
  • References
  • * [1] Read the report of that inquiry [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm here].
  • * [1] Read the report from that inquiry [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm here].
senate vote 2013-02-27#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-05-15 15:48:26

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it was rejected.
  • The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-02-27.109.1 motion] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Scott_Ludlam&mpc=Senate&house=senate Scott Ludlam], which means that it was rejected.
  • The motion was:
  • ''That the Senate—''
  • ''(a) notes that:''
  • ''(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security] inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,''[1]
  • ''(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and''
  • ''(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and''
  • ''(b) calls on the Government to:''
  • ''(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and''
  • ''(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights human rights] standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.''
  • References
  • * [1] Read the report of that inquiry [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm here].
senate vote 2013-02-27#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-05-15 15:46:25

Title

  • Motions National Security Inquiry
  • Motions - National Security Inquiry - Abandon plan to retain data for up to two years

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p>
  • <p>) ( ): I seek leave to make a brief statement.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it was rejected.
  • The motion was:
  • ''That the Senate—''
  • ''(a) notes that:''
  • ''(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Intelligence_and_Security Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security] inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,''[1]
  • ''(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and''
  • ''(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and''
  • ''(b) calls on the Government to:''
  • ''(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and''
  • ''(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights human rights] standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.''
  • References
  • * [1] Read the report of that inquiry [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm here].
  • <p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p>
  • <p>The motion that we will shortly put to a vote acknowledges that the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is investigating a whole suite of proposals, most controversially one into two-year data retention for all Australians, has released the list of submissions that were put to that committee. A total of more than 5&#189; thousand submissions were put to the inquiry. If you take out the ones that were kept confidential, 98.9 per cent of submitters, from a very broad spectrum of Australian society, oppose two-year mandatory data retention for all Australians. So, we are not quite in the 99 per cent in this particular instance; we are in the 98.9 per cent. I hope our new Attorney-General pays very close attention to the tenor of the submissions to the national security inquiry. I congratulate the Australian Pirate Party for registration for tabling the petition that I did a short time ago on the same issue. I move:</p>
  • <p class="italic">That the Senate&#8212;</p>
  • <p class="italic">(a) notes that:</p>
  • <p class="italic">(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,</p>
  • <p class="italic">(ii) of the total 5554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and</p>
  • <p class="italic">(iii) respondents objected that the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and</p>
  • <p class="italic">(b) calls on the Government to:</p>
  • <p class="italic">(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and</p>
  • <p class="italic">(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode human rights standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p>
  • <p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.</p>