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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2014-09-25#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-11-14 09:48:19

Title

  • National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - Put the question
  • National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - End debate on whether to limit ASIO's access to devices

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1) that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis).
  • The majority agreed to [end debate](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1) on whether to limit the number of devices the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO) can access. This means that the senators will immediately be asked whether they agree with this question without further debate (see that [division](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3)). In parliamentary jargon, they voted for [putting the question](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/odgers/chap1023).
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.(The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [Ian Macdonald](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald) and can be seen [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3). ) In this case, Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam) had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • ###Background to the bill
  • _Background to the bill_
  • After the [major counter-terrorism raids](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-18/authorities-thwart-beheading-plot-in-australias-biggest-raid/5754276) in Sydney and Brisbane, Prime Minister [Tony Abbott](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/warringah/tony_abbott) said that the balance between freedom and security had to shift (see [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/abbott-warns-of-shifting-balance-freedom-security/5760818)). This bill is part of that change.
  • The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
  • The bill also [seems to be a response](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/bureaucrats-attempt-to-calm-fears-over-media-spy-laws/5674526) to American [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) leaking classified American intelligence information last year.
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
  • The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
  • - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • - enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • - enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • - updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.
  • (Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)
  • Read the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019) for more information about the bill.
senate vote 2014-09-25#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-09 13:42:11

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1) that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis).
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.(The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [Ian Macdonald](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald) and can be seen [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3). ) In this case, Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam) had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
  • The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
  • - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • - enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • - enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • - updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1) that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis).
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.(The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [Ian Macdonald](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald) and can be seen [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3). ) In this case, Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam) had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
  • The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
  • - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • - enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • - enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • - updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.
  • (Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)
senate vote 2014-09-25#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:22:32

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1 motion] that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis George Brandis].
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.(The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald Ian Macdonald] and can be seen [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3 here]. ) In this case, Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam] had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. )
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. )
  • The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
  • * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].)
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1) that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis).
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.(The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [Ian Macdonald](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald) and can be seen [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3). ) In this case, Greens Senator [Scott Ludlam](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam) had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969) is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security)'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm#). )
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [Edward Snowden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden). This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019). )
  • The bill amends the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979) (ASIO Act) and the [Intelligence Services Act 2001](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001) (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • - modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [Australian Security Intelligence Organisation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation) (ASIO);
  • - enabling the [Australian Secret Intelligence Service](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service) (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • - enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • - enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • - updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019).)
senate vote 2014-09-25#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:17:02

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1 motion] that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis George Brandis].
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.[1] In this case, Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam] had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.(The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald Ian Macdonald] and can be seen [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3 here]. ) In this case, Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam] had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2]
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).(Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here]. )
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3]
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.(Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest]. )
  • The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
  • * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4]
  • * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.(Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].)
  • ''References''
  • * [1] The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald Ian Macdonald] and can be seen [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3 here].
  • * [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here].
  • * [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
  • * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
senate vote 2014-09-25#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-02 10:51:46

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1 motion] that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis George Brandis]. The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.[1] In this case, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1 motion] that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis George Brandis].
  • The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.[1] In this case, Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/wa/scott_ludlam Scott Ludlam] had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2]
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3]
  • The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
  • * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4]
  • ''References''
  • * [1] The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald Ian Macdonald] and can be seen [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3 here].
  • * [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here].
  • * [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
  • * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
  • * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
senate vote 2014-09-25#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-02 10:50:24

Title

  • Bills — National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014; in Committee
  • National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - Put the question

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p>
  • <p>We are dealing with amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7570 moved by Senator Macdonald.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-09-25.82.1 motion] that the question now be put, which was moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/george_brandis George Brandis]. The effect of this motion is to end debate on a subject by putting the next question immediately.[1] In this case, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam had just asked Senator Brandis "how many devices individual warrants ended up allowing lawful access to", to which Senator Brandis responded "you have asked several times in your contributions today the same question that was asked and answered yesterday" before moving this motion.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s969 bill] is the first part of the Abbott Government's proposed national security reforms. The changes it makes relate to the powers of Australian intelligence agencies to obtain and gather intelligence and most are are drawn from recommendations made in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Joint_Committee_on_Intelligence_and_Security Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security]'s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (2013 PJCIS Report).[2]
  • The release of the 2013 PJCIS Report coincided with the leaking of classified information by a former system administrator for American intelligence, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden Edward Snowden]. This context is significant in terms of the provisions in the bill that create new offences of unauthorised disclosure of intelligence information.[3]
  • The bill amends the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation_Act_1979 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979] (ASIO Act) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Services_Act_2001 Intelligence Services Act 2001] (IS Act). Key amendments include:
  • * modernising and streamlining the intelligence collection powers of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation Australian Security Intelligence Organisation] (ASIO);
  • * enabling the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service Australian Secret Intelligence Service] (ASIS) to collect intelligence on Australian persons involved in activities in relation to operational security;
  • * enabling ASIS to cooperate with ASIO without ministerial authorisation when undertaking certain intelligence collection activities;
  • * enabling ASIS to train certain individuals in the use of weapons and self-defence techniques; and
  • * updating existing offences and increasing penalties, and create two new offences in relation to the protection of intelligence-related information.[4]
  • ''References''
  • * [1] The next division in this case was on amendments introduced by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/members/senate/queensland/ian_macdonald Ian Macdonald] and can be seen [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/divisions/senate/2014-09-25/3 here].
  • * [2] Read the 2013 PJCIS Report [http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/report.htm# here].
  • * [3] Read more about this background context to the bill in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
  • * [4] Read more about these amendments, and others, in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1415a/15bd019 bills digest].
  • <p>For those following at home, this debate has reached the stage where we are discussing the fact that the government appears to have allowed&#8212;and I will not call it a 'loophole' because that implies that it would have been accidental&#8212;the ability for a single ASIO warrant to encompass an unlimited number of devices, whether that be a single device, a handset, a room full of them, an entire university campus or an entire city. Obviously, the internet is a network of networks and it appears as though the government has deliberately allowed the drafting in this way, in such an open-ended way, as to allow ASIO to effectively intrude on an unlimited number of devices off the back of one single warrant. I am not clear at all about the reporting obligations as to whether the IGIS, or the Attorney for that matter, would be obliged to report how many devices were covered in a single warrant. My understanding, and I am sure Senator Brandis will freely correct me if I am wrong, I am sure, is that there is no such reporting obligation to the public or to the parliament.</p>
  • <p>What the Australian Greens amendment seeks to do is to set&#8212;and I acknowledge it is arbitrary&#8212;a cap. The arbitrary cap that we have proposed would be 20 devices. I think Senator Xenophon has stated quite clearly he thinks that is a bit low. I am very, very open to discussion on how many we think it should be. But I am very firmly of the view that it should not be possible to access an arbitrary number of devices up to and including every device connected to every other device. I think it is extraordinary that the government would even propose that that occur.</p>
  • <p>This is not something that Australian Greens are alone in having concerns over. If you go back to the parliamentary joint committee&#8212;this bill did not go to a Senate committee; it went to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security&#8212;it proposed, not all but some of, these measures in the first place. The submitters to that very brief inquiry put numerous concerns on the table as to these provisions. There are a number of them, but I will begin with the Law Council, who I do not think anybody in here would characterise as having radical views on these matters. Because the amendments ignore key recommendations in the PJICS report, the Law Council highlighted concerns with this schedule, which enables ASIO to obtain intelligence from a number of computers, including a network, under a single computer access warrant. On page 16 of their submission, the Law council says the following:</p>
  • <p class="italic">&#8230;the Law Council is concerned that there is currently no definition of a &#8216;computer network&#8217;. In this respect, the Law Council notes that its own staff use computers on occasion through a remote access network which can be accessed from their homes. Using this example, it is unclear whether the information on staff&#8217;s home computers would be covered as part of the warrant in respect of a &#8216;computer network&#8217;.</p>
  • <p>The Law Council has raised a fairly specific question that has not been addressed in the government amendments that have been circulated. Maybe at this point I would ask Senator Brandis to identify for us, in that instance that the Law Council puts to us, where a warrant has been issued which covers a computer network of people who are in a particular workplace, does the warrant therefore include home computers of that same person? Would the definition of 'computer network' include devices at home or on other premises entirely?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p>
  • <p>The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ludlam</p>
  • <p>For the record, I will note that is the third or fourth time&#8212;<i>Hansard</i> will be keeping track&#8212;that the Attorney-General has refused to answer a straightforward question on this matter. I suspect there will be others, so perhaps we should start keeping count. I will continue from the Law Council's submission:</p>
  • <p class="italic">The Law Council understands the need to ensure that processes associated with computer access warrants are efficient.</p>
  • <p>As do the Australian Greens.</p>
  • <p class="italic">However, the Law Council considers that in order to protect privacy rights from undue intrusion, access to computers should be on the basis that there is a demonstrated sufficient nexus between the computers accessed and the nominated person of security interest.</p>
  • <p>I guess that is the rub. There is a nominated person of security interest. We have applied for a computer access warrant that surrounds that person. How many devices could such a warrant capture? I think it is an entirely reasonable question that I am putting. The Law Council continues:</p>
  • <p class="italic">Rule of law principles also demand that there is greater clarity as to the scope of conduct which will be permissible under the warrant.</p>
  • <p>Again, this is from page 16:</p>
  • <p class="italic">For example, ASIO should not be able to seek a warrant to access the computers on a particular network, or at a nominated location unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person in relation to whom intelligence is being sought had a direct connection with computers other than his/her own on the network.</p>
  • <p>I think what the Law Council is getting to there is the arbitrary nature of the fact that these devices are all connected either physically or via wireless networks, and that the drafting appears to allow entirely arbitrary traversals of networks onto computers which actually have no direct connection with the person of interest. Perhaps this exists and it is just that the Law Council is not aware of it. Senator Brandis, could you point us to any definition, either in this statute that we are amending or another, of the key term of 'computer network'? Is there any definition in law that you could point us to to assuage our concerns about the arbitrary nature of the amendment that you have put before us?</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p>
  • <p>I think that is a no.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p>
  • <p>I do not purport ever to answer a question on behalf of Senator Brandis, but I imagine if there is not a statutory definition as to what a 'computer network' is there will be a common law definition as determined by the courts. I indicate that I will not be supporting the Australian Greens' amendment in relation to this. But, as a matter of some urgency, I am seeking to have an amendment drafted that I think would go some way to dealing with the concerns of Senators Leyonhjelm and Ludlam. That would be to require the annual report of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to give, in broad terms, the number of devices that may be captured by these warrants; something that would not affect an operational issue but would give a broad outline, from a disclosure point of view, as to how that would work. I am actually quite keen for this amendment to be dealt with. That is a matter for the Senate to deal with, but that is where I am at and I hope we can deal with.</p>
  • <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>