For those interested, this was also brought up in 2012 [0]. Among 44 different things that were requesting comment, was this, tucked away in section 15c [1]:
"tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts"
One of the main reasons it didn't end up going further was likely due to the fact so many Australians wrote to the inquiry expressing their concerns [1]:
"The Committee received 240 submissions and 29 exhibits. Three submissions were received in largely identical terms from some 5,300 individual members of the public. These submitter's expressed opposition to the reform proposals, particularly the proposed mandatory data retention proposal."
The part you will be interested in is "Chapter 5 - Data Retention" [2]. In it, the committee came to the conclusion that there wan't enough information provided in the terms of reference to make a proper judgement. However they talk about how it is of obvious interest to the law enforcement agencies, and obvious problem to civil libertarians. They commented on how it is up to the government to choose how to make a decision and take into account these two opposing views.
This is actually the first time I participated in a democratic process, beyond voting, and was pleasantly surprised to find out (only this morning during a more detailed read through the report) that they quoted my submission! [2 (Box 1)].
It is sort of the opposite to voting, where you feel "how can I make a difference". If you take the time to write in to such an inquiry, then it is highly likely that your opinion will get taken seriously.
It's funny, because I was happy to read the coverage about the overwhelming amount of letters they received regarding data retention. However I was really dumbfounded when they mailed my a physical book with the contents of the report in it, rather than just emailing a link to the PDF or something. Lo and behold, it actually turned out to be useful for me to sit down on the couch this morning and thumb through after reading this new headline about the topic.
"tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts"
One of the main reasons it didn't end up going further was likely due to the fact so many Australians wrote to the inquiry expressing their concerns [1]:
"The Committee received 240 submissions and 29 exhibits. Three submissions were received in largely identical terms from some 5,300 individual members of the public. These submitter's expressed opposition to the reform proposals, particularly the proposed mandatory data retention proposal."
The part you will be interested in is "Chapter 5 - Data Retention" [2]. In it, the committee came to the conclusion that there wan't enough information provided in the terms of reference to make a proper judgement. However they talk about how it is of obvious interest to the law enforcement agencies, and obvious problem to civil libertarians. They commented on how it is up to the government to choose how to make a decision and take into account these two opposing views.
This is actually the first time I participated in a democratic process, beyond voting, and was pleasantly surprised to find out (only this morning during a more detailed read through the report) that they quoted my submission! [2 (Box 1)].
It is sort of the opposite to voting, where you feel "how can I make a difference". If you take the time to write in to such an inquiry, then it is highly likely that your opinion will get taken seriously.
[0] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...
[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...
[2] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...