Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

  (a)   notes:

     (i)   reports of a surveillance system known as TrapWire operating in the United Kingdom, Canada and cities in the United States of America, including Washington DC, Las Vegas, New York and Los Angeles, and

     (ii)   TrapWire's features are reputed to include the ability to centralise and aggregate data from public surveillance cameras and share threat information across networks; and

  (b)   calls on the Government to confirm:

     (i)   whether the TrapWire system is deployed anywhere in Australia,

     (ii)   if Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies have access to, or have in the past used, information provided by foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies using the TrapWire system, and

     (iii)   if the Government or its law enforcement and intelligence agencies have held discussions about acquiring the TrapWire system for use by government entities here.

Question negatived.

I seek leave to make a very brief statement.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators might wish to refer to the Notice Paperto ascertain what it was you just voted no to. I am seeking the minister's guidance on exactly why the government has opposed this motion, because it simply asks—yes or no—whether these systems are deployed anywhere in Australia. It does not make any accusations. We do not even have a clear idea of exactly what this pattern recognition surveillance network does. But I am seeking to ascertain whether or not it is used by any Commonwealth agency. I would invite the minister, if she would care to inform the Senate, so we do not have to use other mechanisms—although, of course, we will if we have to—as to exactly why the government is voting against a fairly straightforward motion that notes that the system exists, that it is deployed overseas to attract people as a private surveillance network and to inform the chamber whether or not it is used here in Australia. I would have thought that was a fairly straightforward request.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I called the motion in the negative. There was no division called for—I gather that is correct. You did get to your feet, Senator Ludlam. A division was not required.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Required, Mr Deputy President.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I put the question and you jumped to your feet straightaway after I declared it has been lost. You did not call for a division at the time, Senator Ludlam, so I will rule that a division was not required at the time.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I have missed the opportunity for a division, I ask that the record note the Australian Greens' support for the motion and our sense of bafflement at the government's opposition.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is so noted.