Data Retention Delayed Until 2015

The Labor Opposition has confirmed that it will move to delay debate, and therefore passage, of the Data Retention legislation introduced into Parliament today to ensure the Bill can be subjected to "proper scrutiny".

In a bid to stop the Coalition ramming its proposed Data Retention amendment Bill through the House Of Representatives, the Labor Opposition has moved to delay debate until 2015.

Via a statement this evening Labor's Shadow Communications Minister, Jason Clare MP, said that the legislation is complex and needs the right attention. Here's his full statement:

Labor has requested that the Government defer debate on the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill until 2015 to give adequate time for a thorough consultation process to occur.
This legislation is complex and contentious. It is broader than National Security. It has privacy implications and could also potentially increase the cost of internet bills. It therefore needs to be subject to robust scrutiny over months not weeks.
The Opposition was not consulted before the introduction of the bill.
Labor is also disappointed the Government introduced the bill without first consulting with the Australian people.
In May last year the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security unanimously recommended that the Government publish an exposure draft of any legislation that proposed a mandatory data retention regime. George Brandis was a member of this committee at the time.
Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Shadow Minister for Communications Jason Clare this week wrote to Brandis calling on the Government to release an exposure draft of the data retention legislation for public consultation. The Government has rejected that.
This should be subject to robust scrutiny and the Australian public should be given every opportunity to have their say before such a proposal becomes law.

The Coalition has since accepted Labor's proposal to delay the debate.

To ensure correct scrutiny of the Bill, Labor frontbencher Clare as well as Shadow Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus will also join the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is designed to oversee such legislation.

Breathe regular, readers: your data is (mostly) safe for now.


Comments

    Delaying the inevitable, or bait and switch..?

    Is this the kind of careful scrutiny that Bill Shorten gave the other pieces of terrorism legislation? You know, the ones intended for jailing whistle-blowers and journalists? The ones he helped wave through parliament without so much as glancing at them? The ones he has since said he has grave misgivings about? That kind of careful scrutiny?

    Last edited 30/10/14 10:03 pm

    Labor wanted a similar scheme when they were in power so I very much doubt they'll block this for long. I reckon they'll pass it through once a few changes are made to it to suit them.

      Although keep in mind how much back lash it caused them. They might be figuring if so many people voted it down when it was their idea. They might now be able to use it as political capital for getting re-elected if they oppose it.
      I hope they are thinking about it like that because there is a hell of a lot more voting public against then for this policy.

    Awesome, I don't have to pay for a VPN yet!

    Yay for common sense.

    Now for Labor et al need to stand up for our privacy!

    Wouldn't it be better to have data retention, but ONLY for people who have convicted a felony? Like a con man, or a drug abuser?
    Like, if you're a pedophile, SURELY it makes sense for your metadata to be checked regularly by police to make sure you're not whacking off to some kid's facebook or something.

      I agree. In it's current form I don't even think they need a warrant.

      Agreed, also, and isn't also just a waste of time really when the main use is to catch terrorists and if the general public are smart enough to use VPNs do you think they wont ? This is really designed to catch idiots and thats about it.

      pretty sure pedos have internet restrictions right off the bat

      I got busted smoking a joint at a music festival ten years ago, so i'm not entitled to any privacy? I hope you're not old enough to vote yet mate. And wouldn't you rather pedophiles whack off to kids' Facebook pages in the privacy of their own home than suppress their sexuality to the point where they eventually cave in and go find a real kid to f%$k? Go and re-think your opinions.

        Mate, feeding pedophiles their fucked up quirks is not the way to go. You either heal the issue, imprison it, or in worst-case scenario kill it. They're not gonna get better if you keep letting them live off the fantasy, not to mention I don't think anyone would be too damn happy if they found out a pedophile was whacking off over theirs, or their kids, social media.

        And yes, if I were the policeman and I caught you smoking a joint, I'd monitor the hell out of your internet usage because I'm a cop and it's my job to stamp out drugs and drug trafficking.

          No, your job is to keep the public safe.

          Spending resources on someone because they smoked a joint is beyod stupid.

      Ahh no... How are they supposed to meet their agenda of spying on the general population if they do that?

    Why even bother delaying, it's still going to be as stupid of an idea then as it is now...

    This piece of legislation (the data retention scheme) is a carbon copy of the 2001 Patriot act from the US.

    The US government recently released data on the last 13 years of data retention and less than 1% was used for the collection of data related to terrorism.

    This is what the Australian government is trying to sell you.......a system that has nothing to do with tracking terrorists but a legitimate way for the government to monitor and track your every move, online and offline. You are nothing but cattle to them.

    LibLab are both guilty of caving to the pressure of the US over this one and i would say it has something to do with signing the TPP, it would be part of the conditions, like getting rid of free public healthcare so the big health vultures form the US can move into Australia.

    i would go and put my tinfoil hat back on but every crazy conspiracy i hear from the Australia government has come true...

      You are almost certainly correct in your statements. The TPP could seriously be then end of Australia if it was to be allowed through.

    Data retention is a waste of time, money and resources. I don't believe that 20+ million people should sacrifice their privacy for a handful of idiots. It will just become a huge cache of private data that people will want to access and try to exploit.

    This is all an incredible joke, Labor will delay it so they can look like they are listenting to the people, and will then allow it through anyway as they have wanted it in the past and will want it in future - even if they have to wait a little while.

    Liberals and Labor just seem to be two heads of the same beast these days...a beast I call 'Libbor'.

    What I dont understand is what are they really planning to get out of it? Keeping US film studios happy yes, but the cost to do so seem's incredibly high (both financially and politically). We know it's essentially ineffective in preventing terrorism, so what do they really hope to achieve through this?

    Is it nothing more than a step to something more dire?

    This is why you can't have just 1 party with a Majority in the parliament and senate. having many marties ensures, we dont get screwed over. or at the very least greedy politicians still hold bills to ransom for stuff they want. This is the only time Politics actually works... when there is deadlock!

    What drives me to despair is that no ISP or any company for that fact can guarantee the privacy of your data. Politicians are completely ill-equipped to handle these issues. Even translation of the issues from their technical advisers will not provide adequate understanding because it’s an extremely complex technology that cannot be dumbed down. The recent vulnerability in the Australia myGov web portal should prove that beyond doubt. In case you missed it (http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/revealed-serious-flaws-in-mygov-site-exposed-millions-of-australians-private-information-20140515-zrczw.html). Politicians are simply out of their depth and therefore cannot implement policies on issues they do not understand. How can they store private data when they cannot guarantee its security? Since we can expect that our data will be compromised at some point the senators that vote this bill in should lead by example and ask their ISP's to make available to the public their meta data for the past 12 months. Once we’ve all had a good look at the data we can decide for ourselves if they are even fit for office let alone policy making.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now