Footnotes

Chapter 1 - Introduction

[1]        The TIA Act was renamed in 2006 from the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979.

Chapter 2 - Overview of the Bill

[1]        The Department has set out the regime diagrammatically in a TIA Act table: see Additional Information No. 2, Diagrams tabled by Attorney-General's Department, Telecommunications and Surveillance Law Branch at the public hearing held in Canberra on Monday 16 July 2007, available from the committee's website.

[2]        Attorney-General's Department, Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Report for the year ending 30 June 2006, May 2007, at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Publications_Telecommunications(Interception andAccess)Act1979Reportfortheyearending30June2006 (accessed 1 July 2007).

[3]        p. 13.

[4]        The Hon. Mr Philip Ruddock MP, Attorney-General, 'Telecommunications Interception Aids Prosecution', Media Release 088/2007, 9 May 2007.

[5]        See also NSW Council of Civil Liberties, 'Australian phones 26 times more likely to be bugged than an American phone', Media Release, 13 January 2006.

[6]          Bronitt, S. and Stellios, J., 'Telecommunications interception in Australia: Recent trends and regulatory prospects', Telecommunications Policy 29 (2005), p. 886.

[7]          Bronitt, S. and Stellios, J., 'Telecommunications interception in Australia: Recent trends and regulatory prospects', Telecommunications Policy 29 (2005), p. 886.  See also Bronitt and Stellios, 'Regulating Telecommunications Interception and Access in the Twenty-First Century: technological Evolution of Legal Revolution?', Prometheus, vol. 24, no. 4, December 2006, pp 413-428.

[8].         Before the Blunn Review, there were four major reports dealing with telecommunications interception.  They were:

[9]         A S Blunn AO, Report of the Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications, August 2005, p. 34.

[10]      A S Blunn AO, Report of the Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications, August 2005, p. 34.

[11]      A S Blunn AO, Report of the Review of the Regulation of Access to Communications, August 2005, pp 34-35.

[12]      The Hon. Mr Philip Ruddock MP, Attorney-General, House of Representatives Hansard, 30 March 2006, p. 98.

[13]      This is confirmed by the Department in their Answers to questions on notice, 24 July, 2007p. 4. The Department provided, as Attachment A, an excel spreadsheet outlining the government's implementation of the Blunn Review thus far.

[14]      Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert Digest No.7 of 2007, p. 20.

[15]      The UK uses the term 'call associated data': see paragraph 21(4)(b) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (UK).

[16]      See further discussion at paragraph 2.32.

[17]      This is comparable to the traditional use of Call Charge Records by law enforcement agencies.

[18]      p. 6.

[19]      p. 8.

[20]      p. 4.

[21]      p. 3.

[22]      p. 5.

[23]      The Department has set out the transfer of provisions in table form: see Additional Information No. 2, Diagrams tabled by Attorney-General's Department, Telecommunications and Surveillance Law Branch at the public hearing held in Canberra on Monday 16 July 2007, available from the committee's website.

[24]      p. 12.

[25]      The Department has set out interaction with CSPs diagrammatically: see Additional Information No. 2, Diagrams tabled by Attorney-General's Department, Telecommunications and Surveillance Law Branch at the public hearing held in Canberra on Monday 16 July 2007, available from the committee's website.

[26]      Members of the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) do not charge police for services in life-threatening situations but are entitled, under the Telecommunications Act, to recover costs for non-life threatening requests from police for call records to assist criminal investigations.

[27]      Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert Digest No.7 of 2007, p. 19.

[28]      EM, p. 41.

[29]      pp 25-26.

[30]      The Department has provided a table of the policy origin of the amendments in Schedule 2 as Attachment B to Answers to questions on notice taken at the hearing, 24 July 2007.

[31]      p. 42.

Chapter 3 - Key issues

[1]        See, for example, Optus, Submission 2; Department of Defence, Submission 3; Communications Alliance Ltd, Submission 18, p. 1; Tasmania Police, Submission 23, p. 2.

[2]        Full details about the consultation process are given by the Attorney-General's Department, Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, pp 4-8.

[3]        Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 30.

[4]        Submission 19, p. 2.

[5]        Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 18. See also Attorney-General's Department, Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, pp 4-5.

[6]        Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 10. See also Law Council of Australia, Submission 20, p. 14.

[7]        Submission 6a, p. 5.

[8]        Submission 20, p. 13.

[9]        Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 10.

[10]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 22.

[11]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 10.

[12]      Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Submission on Exposure Draft of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007, February 2007, at http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/subtel0207.html (accessed 1 July 2007).

[13]      Submission 19, p. 2.

[14]      Submission 6, pp 9-12; Submission 17, p. 3. 

[15]      Submission 17, p. 3.

[16]      Submission 6, p. 9.

[17]      Submission 6, pp 9-10. The Department has agreed to review the EM to remove any ambiguity.  See Attorney-General's Department, Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 13.

[18]      Submission 6, p. 12.

[19]      Submission 6, p. 4.

[20]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 22.

[21]      p. 8.

[22]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 31.

[23]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 31.

[24]      Attorney-General's Department, Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, pp 10-11.  The EFA disputes the Department's interpretation of RFC 2822: see Submission 6b.

[25]      Submission 6, p. 4.

[26]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 9. See also New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Submission 10, p. 3; Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission 17, p. 4.

[27]      Submission 20, p. 6.

[28]      Submission 20, pp 6-7.

[29]      Submission 8, p. 2.

[30]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 23.

[31]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 24.

[32]      Submission 4, pp 1-3.

[33]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 2.

[34]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 3.

[35]      Submission 4, pp 2-3.

[36]      Submission 7, pp 1-2.

[37]      Submission 21, p. 2.

[38]      Submission 4, attachment, p. 2.

[39]      Submission 4, attachment, p. 2.

[40]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, pp 30-31. See further Attorney-General's Department, Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, pp 11-12.

[41]      Submission 16, p. 1.

[42]      Submission 16, p. 1.

[43]      Submission 19, p. 2.

[44]      Submission 16, p. 1; Submission 19, p. 4.

[45]      Submission 19, p. 4.

[46]      Submission 10, p. 2.

[47]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 5.

[48]      Submission 19, p. 3.

[49]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 16.

[50]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 19.

[51]      Submission 5, p. 2.

[52]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 13.

[53]      Submission 11, p. 2.

[54]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 28.

[55]      Submission 5, p. 6; Submission 9, p. 1.

[56]      Submission 5, p. 6.

[57]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 27.

[58]      Submission 5, pp 2-3; Submission 9, p. 4.

[59]      Submission 5, pp 2-3.

[60]      Submission 5, p. 3.

[61]      Submission 11, p. 2.

[62]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 29.

[63]      Submission 5, p. 4. See also Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 16.

[64]      Submission 9, p. 4.

[65]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 9.

[66]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 6.

[67]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 16.

[68]      Submission 5, pp 3-4. See also Telstra, Submission 9, p. 3.

[69]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 30. See also Attorney-General's Department, Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 6.

[70]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, pp 29-30.

[71]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 1.

[72]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 1.

[73]      Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 28.

[74]      EM, pp 18-19.

[75]      EM, p. 42.

[76]      Submission 14, pp 3-4. See also Premier of Western Australia, Submission 25, pp 1-2.

[77]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, pp 18-19.

[78]      Submission 14, p. 2.

[79]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 15.

[80]      Submission 19, p. 6.

[81]      Answers to questions on notice, 24 July 2007, p. 5.

[82]      Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006, March 2006, Recommendation 25, p. 48.

Minority report by the Australian Democrats

[1] Electronic Frontiers Australia, Submission 6, pp 4-5.

[2] Committee Hansard, 16 July, p. 10.

[3] Committee Hansard, 16 July 2007, p. 22.

[4] Law Council of Australia, Submission 20, p. 6.

[5] Tom Wright, Geographic Information Systems, at http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/pubpres/papers/gis.htm (accessed 31 July 2007).