|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of agreeing to the remaining stages of the bill, which means it passed. Since the bill had already been passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.
What does the bill do?
According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced in order to:
- respond to concern about the validity of certain ACIC determinations and other documents raised in the case of CXXXVIII v Commonwealth by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and
- amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.
Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties like the Centre Alliance were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted to agree with the main idea of the bill. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time, which means they can now discuss the bill in more detail.
What is the bill's main idea?
According to the bills digest, the bill was introduced in order to:
- respond to concern about the validity of certain ACIC determinations and other documents raised in the case of CXXXVIII v Commonwealth by confirming the validity of current and former Australian Crime Commission (ACC) special operations and special investigations, the lawfulness of which has been questioned and
- amend the process by which the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) Board authorises future special operations and special investigations, including by amending the threshold of which it must be satisfied.
Although the bill does not expand or alter the powers available to ACIC, parties like the Centre Alliance were concerned by the retroactive nature of the bill. That is, it will confirm the validity of current and former special operations and special investigations at a time when the High Court is considering the validity of these laws in the context of an alleged unlawful investigation.
|
absent
|
Yes
|
Passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion to agree with the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time. This means that the senators can now discuss the bill in greater detail.
What is the bill's main idea?
This bill was introduced to extend the operation of certain special powers relating to suspected terrorism offences to 7 September 2020. Currently, those powers are due to sunset (that is, stop being part of our law) on 7 September 2019.
What are the special powers?
The special powers extended by this bill are the power to issue questioning warrants (QWs) and questioning and detention warrants (QDWs) in relation to suspected terrorism offences. They are extraordinary because they can be issued in relation to someone even though they are not suspected of, or charged with, any offence. In other words, these warrants are an intelligence-gathering and preventative power. Someone might be subject to these warrants because they can provide information about a potential terrorism offence and they may be detained in order to prevent them from damaging evidence or alerting someone involved in a terrorism offence that their actions are being investigated.
These powers have been extended several times since they were first introduced in 2002. More information is available in the bills digest.
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Passed by a large majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted in favour of a motion "[t]hat the remaining stages of this bill be agreed to and this bill be now passed." Since the bill has already passed in the House of Representatives, it can now become law.
What is the bill's main idea?
According to the bills digest:
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 will amend a number of Acts—primarily the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (SD Act)—to facilitate access to certain communications and data for the purposes of disrupting and investigating criminal activity and threats to national security, including organised crime and terrorism.
The Government is responding to the impediment that the increasing prevalence of encrypted data and communications represents to available investigative and interception capabilities.
|
Yes
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted to agree with the main idea of the bill, which means the can now discuss it in more detail. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.
What is the bill's main idea?
According to the bills digest:
The Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 will amend a number of Acts—primarily the Telecommunications Act 1997, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (SD Act)—to facilitate access to certain communications and data for the purposes of disrupting and investigating criminal activity and threats to national security, including organised crime and terrorism.
The Government is responding to the impediment that the increasing prevalence of encrypted data and communications represents to available investigative and interception capabilities.
|
Yes
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John (WA), which means it failed.
Motion text
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in 2013, the UN General Assembly affirmed that the rights held by people offline must also be protected online, and it called upon all states to respect and protect the right to privacy in digital communication,
(ii) on 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the methods for bulk interception of online communications used by the United Kingdom's (UK) Government Communications Headquarters violated privacy and failed to provide sufficient surveillance safeguards,
(iii) the ECHR ruled that safeguards must indicate "the nature of offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their communications intercepted; a limit on the duration of interception; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which intercepted data may or must be erased or destroyed",
(iv) the legal challenge was brought by Big Brother Watch and Others following revelations by National Security Agency whistleblower, Mr Edward Snowden, in 2013 that intelligence services were covertly intercepting, processing, and storing communications data in bulk, and
(v) Australian mass surveillance laws, including the proposed Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018, are based on the UK Investigatory Powers Act 2016, also known as the Snoopers' Charter; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) consider Australia's obligations under the UN Declaration of Human Rights and international laws, including the European General Data Protection Regulation, and
(ii) review Australian privacy and surveillance laws, to ensure Australians' human rights are upheld, including their right to privacy, and that sufficient safeguards are enshrined in legislation.
|
No
|
No
|
Not passed by a modest majority
|
|
Show detail
The majority voted to support the main idea of the bill's main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against giving the bill a second reading.
This means that the Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail.
What is the bill's main idea?
According to the bills digest, the bill:
is the latest in a series of reforms to national security and counter-terrorism laws since mid-2014. The Government states the Bill would address issues that have come to light through recent counter-terrorism investigations and operational activity.
A key part of the bill relates to control orders. For example, the bill would lower the minimum age that a control order can be imposed from 16 to 14 years of age. It would also introduce new ‘monitoring powers’ to:
allow police to use entry, search and seizure, telecommunications interception and surveillance device powers in relation to a person subject to a control order to monitor their compliance with the order and prevent terrorist related conduct
A concerning part of the bill relates to procedural fairness and will:
allow courts to consider information that is not disclosed to the person subject to a control order or their representative for security reasons, in control order proceedings ... and introduce a system of special advocates to represent the interests of those people in proceedings from which they and their legal representatives have been excluded ...
|
Yes
|
Yes (strong)
|
Passed by a modest majority
|
