Thursday, 30 March 2006
Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006
by leave—I move opposition amendments (7) and (8).
(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 32 (after line 21), after subsection 150(1), insert:
(1A) The chief officer must cause a review to be conducted annually of all information or records to which paragraph (1)(a) applies, in order to determine whether the records should be destroyed in accordance with subsection (1).
(8) Schedule 1, item 9, page 33 (after line 9), at the end of Division 1, add:
151A Other records to be kept in connection with access to stored communications
(1) The chief officer of an enforcement agency shall cause:
(a) particulars of each telephone application for a stored communications warrant made by the agency; and
(b) in relation to each application by the agency for a stored communications warrant, a statement as to whether:
(i) the application was withdrawn or refused; or
(ii) a warrant was issued on the application; and
(c) in relation to each stored communications warrant, particulars of:
(i) the warrant; and
(ii) the day on which, and the time at which, each access of stored communications under the warrant occurred; and
(iii) the name of the person who carried out each such interception; and
(v) each service from which stored communications were accessed under the warrant; and
(d) particulars of each use by the agency of lawfully obtained information; and
(e) particulars of each communication of lawfully obtained information by an officer or staff member of the agency to a person other than an officer or staff member of the agency; and
(f) particulars of each occasion when, to the knowledge of an officer of the agency, lawfully obtained information was given in evidence in a relevant proceeding in relation to the agency;
to be recorded in writing or by means of a computer as soon as practicable after the happening of the events to which the particulars relate or the information or statement relates, as the case may be.
These amendments deal with the reporting regime for stored communications. I will not take very long on them. These matters were reflected in recommendations 10 and 11. In total, they strengthen the legislation by specifying time limits on which an agency must review their holdings of information accessed by stored communications warrants.
I think I made the argument a short time ago that this implements a reporting regime for stored communications. These amendments do not achieve all that was in recommendations 10 and 11. They are matters that we might come back to in the future when we have had sufficiently more time. There was not time to complete the drafting process that 10 and 11 would have required, and that is a complaint I make again. However, we have left two amendments that improve on the current situation in requiring agencies to improve their record keeping and review processes. I could not imagine why anyone would oppose that.