Senate debates

Thursday, 30 March 2006

Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006

In Committee

12:44 pm

Photo of Chris EllisonChris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

We believe that 45 days is appropriate. It is half the 90-day period for a real-time interception. Of course, there is nothing to stop law enforcement going for a shorter period of time, but that 45-day period is a maximum period. We think the 14-day period it too short.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move government amendments (16) and (17) on sheet PA337:

(16)  Schedule 2, item 7, page 63 (lines 8 and 9), omit subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii), substitute:

                  (ii)    another person is involved with whom the particular person is likely to communicate using the service; and

(17)  Schedule 2, page 63 (after line 30), at the end of the Schedule, add:

11 After paragraph 100(1)(ec)

Insert:

           (ed)    in relation to applications of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), the relevant statistics about applications of that kind that relate to warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) would apply if the warrants were issued; and

           (ee)    how many Part 2-5 warrants issued during that year on application made by the agency or authority were warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) applied; and

            (ef)    how many Part 2-5 warrants renewed during that year on application made by the agency or authority were warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) applied; and

12 After paragraph 100(2)(ec)

Insert:

           (ed)    in relation to applications of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), the relevant statistics about applications of that kind that relate to warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) would apply if the warrants were issued; and

           (ee)    how many Part 2-5 warrants issued during that year were warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) applied; and

            (ef)    how many Part 2-5 warrants renewed during that year were warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) applied; and

13 At the end of paragraphs 101(1)(a), (b) and (c)

Add “and”.

14 After paragraph 101(1)(d)

Insert:

           (da)    in relation to periods of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d), the averages of the periods of that kind that relate to warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) applied; and

15 At the end of paragraphs 101(2)(a), (b) and (c)

Add “and”.

16 After paragraph 101(2)(d)

Insert:

           (da)    in relation to periods of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d), the averages of the periods of that kind that relate to warrants in relation to which subparagraph 46(1)(d)(ii) applied; and

Government amendments (16) and (17) relate to B-party interception. They impose a requirement for separate statistical reporting of B-party interception to ensure that the use of these powers is reported. Each year, all law enforcement agencies using the interception regime will be required to provide statistics on the number of B-party warrants applied for by law enforcement agencies: the number issued, the number of renewal warrants and the average duration of those warrants. These statistics will be reported in relation to each agency and in total. In addition, amendment (16) clarifies the operation of the B-party interception provisions to ensure the effective operation of these measures. These amendments are consistent with comments by Mr Blunn in his report and also with concerns raised during the Senate committee consideration of this bill. I commend the amendments to the committee.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.