Senate debates

Thursday, 30 March 2006

Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006

In Committee

9:49 am

Photo of Natasha Stott DespojaNatasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move the amendment standing in my name on behalf of the Australian Democrats:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (after line 24), after subsection 113(2), insert:

     (2A)    Without limiting subsection (2), the affidavit shall set out:

             (a)    the name or names by which the person is known; and

             (b)    details (to the extent these are known to the chief officer) sufficient to identify the telecommunications and stored communications services the person is using, or is likely to use; and

             (c)    the number of previous applications (if any) for warrants that the agency has made and that related to the person or to a service that the person has used; and

             (d)    the number of warrants (if any) previously issued on such applications; and

             (e)    the date on which such warrants (if any) were issued; and

              (f)    particulars of the use made by the agency of information obtained by access under such warrants.

This amendment requires that an agency, when applying for a stored communications warrant, include more detail and specific information in the affidavit sworn by the agency. The information required is standard and not unreasonable to expect considering the privacy breaches that can, do and no doubt will occur through a stored communication warrant. We believe that the section which deals with warrant applications in the amendments, 113(3), is far too broad and so requires this specification. It does not give the issuing authority enough relevant information on which to base the decision of whether or not to issue a warrant. In particular, it provides information on when the last warrant was issued, which gives practical effect to section 119(5), which requires that further warrants not be issued if a warrant has been issued within the last three days. We are hoping for specificity in terms of more information. That is a not unreasonable protection to put into the legislation. Obviously, it is something that was discussed and canvassed by the committee in its deliberations.


No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.