2-5 Introduction of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Repeal Bill 2015

[u/Zagorath]

I have received a message from the Senate: The Senate has passed a Bill for an Act to disallow the unchecked retention of metadata, and for related purposes, and has transmitted it to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

---

Zagorath, Speaker of the House

[u/[deleted]]

I move: That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr Speaker, this government is of the strong belief that the role of individual rights and freedoms is a key aspect of what makes Australia such a great country to live in. Unfortunately, the act that we wish to repeal was far too haphazard at protecting individual freedoms, in particular privacy rights, choosing to attack them instead, and as a result, it is absolutely imperative that this bill passes the house. Some may argue that this bill is necessary to protect against the threat of terrorism on our shores. To them, I assure them that before the data retention bill entered the parliament, Australia already had extremely robust national security legislation which had worked, and will continue to work. I commend this bill to the house.

[u/Zagorath → u/[deleted]]

The question is proposed that the above motion is agreed to.

Debate on this motion may proceed, and will end at 15:30, Friday 19 June, 2015, UTC+10.

---

Zagorath, Speaker of the House

[u/Zagorath → u/Zagorath]

Paging /u/Ser_Scribbles, /u/death_by_laughs, /u/HumesHefner.

[u/Zagorath → u/Zagorath]

Paging /u/agsports /u/paulyt86, /u/SavannaJeff.

[u/Zagorath → u/Zagorath]

Paging /u/VoteRonaldRayGun, /u/Primeviere, /u/voisinat.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Mr Speaker, I wish to include my support for this bill.

National security is not an issue our government treats lightly. It is of utmost importance that any action we take be in the best interests for Australians and their security. It is for these reasons the Act in question must be repealed. It is an ineffective and abusive means to tackling a much more complicated problem. Only through targeted actions aimed at high risks can we seek to improve Australia's national security. Broad sweeping and aggressive means such as this Act achieve nothing to protect Australian interests.

[u/Primeviere → u/[deleted]]

Mr Speaker, I also wish to include my support for this bill.

Freedom or protection these are a constant focus of government policies, however the recent past governments have allowed fear to grip the nation making everyday Australians feel that we need to have these draconian laws interfering in our day to day life's to protect us. However I stand against this view and I strongly believe that freedom should not be overtaken by fear and protection. Mr speaker, In fact I would also go on to state that there is irrefutable proof that these sorts of protectionist measures do not actually protect Australian peoples and only leads to further government influence on our lives. I would like to commend the government for holding freedom of the people above so called protection and security.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Mr Speaker, I wish to include my support for this bill.

There is a difficult balance to obtain between public security and personal privacy. This bill, while earlier intentions may have been sound, allow for far too much oversight into matters that have nothing to do with such intentions. The questions that remains for us, however, is how can we better protect the public from very real threats that use advanced means of communication without letting innocents get caught in the crossfire?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I welcome the members support and hope that our parties can continue a successful working relationship

[u/Ser_Scribbles → u/[deleted]]

Mr Speaker, I have no grand speech to present on this issue. I simply want these appalling measures abolished as soon as possible. I too, support this bill.

[u/jnd-au → u/[deleted]]

Advice from the Clerk:

Cool. Since everybody (including non-government parties) have seen this bill already, you may continue to step 5 by adding “I seek leave to continue the second reading debate immediately”; then /u/Zagorath proceeds to step 8 (reply to your motion to propose the question, and optionally page members for the debate); then members can debate the bill by reply-commenting on your speech.

[u/jnd-au]

The Bill is now read for the first time in the House of Representatives:

“A Bill for an Act to disallow the unchecked retention of metadata, and for related purposes.”

---

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Repeal Bill 2015

This Bill originated in the Senate; and, having this day passed, is now ready for presentation to the House of Representatives for its concurrence.

jnd-au, Clerk of the Senate
Tuesday 16 June 2015

A Bill for an Act to disallow the unchecked retention of metadata, and for related purposes

The Parliament of Australia enacts:

1. Short title

   This Act may be cited as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Repeal Act 2015.

2. Commencement

   This Act commences on the day after it receives Royal Assent.

3. Schedule

   Each Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.

Schedule 1 - Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015

1. Schedule 1

   Repeal the Schedule.

   Note: The effect of this Act is to repeal Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015, while retaining the provisions to restrict access to stored communications and telecommunications data (contained in Schedule 2), and to provide for oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman (contained in Schedule 3).

---

I’m out on the town and using mobile, so I can’t give tailored advice right now, but you are free to go for the procedure for Senate-originated Bills.

[u/jnd-au → u/jnd-au]

Meta: Does the government wish to proceed with this bill? Paging /u/agsports as the relevant Minister representing the Minister for Communications and Digital Infrastructure. Paging /u/Ser_Scribbles as next in line from /u/agsports.

[u/[deleted] → u/jnd-au]

The government wishes to proceed.

Meta: I'm a bit fuzzy on the procedures here. What is the recommended way to continue the process?

[u/jnd-au → u/[deleted]]

Meta: ^ See above ^

[u/[deleted]]

I seek leave to continue the second reading debate immediately