Thursday, 30 March 2006
Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006
I move opposition amendment (5) on sheet 4882:
(5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 12 (after line 28), at the end of section 113, add:
(4) Without limiting subsection (2), the affidavit must 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 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) particulars of the use made by the agency of information obtained by interceptions under such warrants.
We have effectively had the debate on this, so I will not go over the substance of the matter. In truth, the government agrees with it but is not prepared to provide the amendment. It is about a belt and braces approach. The government has just demonstrated again that, although it agrees with the sentiment, the issue is how it should be expressed—whether it should be expressed in legislation or in a form that can be altered at the whim of the agency, I suppose. I do not have any problem in the sense that the agency would do its best but, if there is the opportunity in this instance to put it in legislation to give guidance, then it is a much better place for it to be. It is unfortunate the government will not pick it up.