Councils already access metadata in accordance with the Telecommunications Act.[1]
I provided the links to the amended Telecommunications ( Interception ) Act 2006 as it describes the warrant system required for stored data or content. Not data in transit.
Those agencies that have a more direct linkage to federal funding, for example, the ATO on the input side, and Social Security, for example, Jobcentres on the output side, are those bodies that probe metadata the most it would appear, under the provisions in the Act regarding defrauding the public finances without suspicion of criminality or otherwise, though such a suspicion is in itself also a justification.
While the funding provided to local councils via the states is also public funding, direct funding by the Commonwealth has as its aim efficiency of course, but also control and competitive negotiation between councils. The single representative present at the COAG meetings can only be partly effective at representation given the competition between the states. One size doesn't fit all, and there is a case to be made for greater efficiencies by having direct negotiation with the Commonwealth, and for greater formalisation over things like standards of delivery and varieties of services.
With these advantages also comes responsibility, in things like reporting and budget control. Just as happens with the states that have an interest in maximising funding, and where effectively punitive financial penalties are extracted in future COGM rounds because of either malperformance or political difference, I contend that the pressure upon councils to protect their funding will only increase, as it has with the states, which face competitive constraints. Some will win and some will lose, but maintaining maximum levels is something that we expect in any case.
This is a significant constitutional change I think. Local councils, when directly accountable to the Commonwealth, and as providers of services financed from general Commonwealth revenue, will I think behave more broadly alike in their attitude to income and expenditure, and use the methods already allowed them, and already employed by certain other councils. The linkage between council revenues and the revenues considered exactly in the Telecommunications Act are more direct perceptually.
I think Australians should be cautious about this, and so do some of Australia's politicians as well. [2]
I provided the links to the amended Telecommunications ( Interception ) Act 2006 as it describes the warrant system required for stored data or content. Not data in transit.
Those agencies that have a more direct linkage to federal funding, for example, the ATO on the input side, and Social Security, for example, Jobcentres on the output side, are those bodies that probe metadata the most it would appear, under the provisions in the Act regarding defrauding the public finances without suspicion of criminality or otherwise, though such a suspicion is in itself also a justification.
While the funding provided to local councils via the states is also public funding, direct funding by the Commonwealth has as its aim efficiency of course, but also control and competitive negotiation between councils. The single representative present at the COAG meetings can only be partly effective at representation given the competition between the states. One size doesn't fit all, and there is a case to be made for greater efficiencies by having direct negotiation with the Commonwealth, and for greater formalisation over things like standards of delivery and varieties of services.
With these advantages also comes responsibility, in things like reporting and budget control. Just as happens with the states that have an interest in maximising funding, and where effectively punitive financial penalties are extracted in future COGM rounds because of either malperformance or political difference, I contend that the pressure upon councils to protect their funding will only increase, as it has with the states, which face competitive constraints. Some will win and some will lose, but maintaining maximum levels is something that we expect in any case.
This is a significant constitutional change I think. Local councils, when directly accountable to the Commonwealth, and as providers of services financed from general Commonwealth revenue, will I think behave more broadly alike in their attitude to income and expenditure, and use the methods already allowed them, and already employed by certain other councils. The linkage between council revenues and the revenues considered exactly in the Telecommunications Act are more direct perceptually.
I think Australians should be cautious about this, and so do some of Australia's politicians as well. [2]
1. http://powerhouse.theglobalmail.org/the-australian-governmen...
2. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/green...