Skip to content
Political Tracker

27 Feb 2013 · 4:11 PM · Division 2

National Security Inquiry

Abandon plan to retain data for up to two years
Official title
Motions - National Security Inquiry - Abandon plan to retain data for up to two years

Noes in the majority

This says only which side won the vote, because what Aye and No meant here depends on the exact question put in the chamber.

Aye
9
No
33
Not recorded voting
34

“Not recorded voting” is everyone eligible who isn't recorded as Aye or No, for example absent, paired, or presiding.

What was decided

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

_(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,_(Read the report from that inquiry here.)

(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and

(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and

_(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode human rights standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy._

References

Summary written by They Vote For You contributors. Read it with the debate

Policies this vote counts towards

How They Vote For You uses this vote when scoring members against each policy.

Votes by party

Both bars use the same scale: number of members.
Aye
9
No
33
Votes by party as a table
PartyAyeNo
Australian Labor Party019
Liberal Party011
Australian Greens90
National Party02
Deputy Senate President01

How each member voted

Aye · 9

No · 33

Spotted a mistake? Report a correction.