Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am indebted to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should also indicate that the member for La Trobe is currently the Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission.

This bill now recognises the unique oversight role that will apply in Queensland under the Queensland Public Interest Monitor and the role it has in law enforcement matters in Queensland. Introducing the Public Interest Monitor into the interception regime itself will enable the Public Interest Monitor to make submissions to a judge or the AAT member considering the interception application and to ask questions of officers who are applying for such warrants. The recognition of the Public Interest Monitor in the legislation will pave the way in Queensland for state legislation to be enabled. It will allow for the minister to declare the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission as having the legal ability to exercise interception powers covering those agencies. The minister will be able to make a declaration once they are satisfied that the Queensland arrangements comply with the accountability requirements under section 35 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

The bill will only permit the Public Interest Monitor to play a role when the Queensland state interception agencies—either the Queensland Police Service or the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission—are actually seeking to avail themselves of the powers of telephone intercepts using the act. It does not mean, in terms of other areas of operation in concert with either the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission, that those powers will need to be oversighted by the Public Interest Monitor of Queensland. There are a number of technical amendments included in this bill, which, I understand, are used to clarify a number of positions, particularly in relation to references to who is authorised to initiate telephone interception—for example, I think it is in the AFP, the term ‘certifying officer’ is used in subsection 5(1) of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Act 2008, which includes the commissioner of police and the deputy commissioner of police. The term also includes a senior executive officer of the AFP—that means he is a sworn member of the AFP—who can be also authorised in writing by the commissioner of police.

I do not know about the case of the Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd v Australian Securities Commission directly—no doubt the member for Denison, being a Senior Counsel, would be more than aware of it—but I understand from the briefing notes that there was some legal point that turned on whether the Corporations Law could be read as providing a source of power. Not being a lawyer, I will not go to the briefing notes on that. I will let my learned friends take on those matters. What I understand from a layman’s point of view is that there is some potential risk that a court could effectively strike down the provisions that seek to confer power in an authority making an authorisation. This bill seeks to put it beyond doubt and to ensure that where power is being exercised it is legally enforceable. I believe that this provision will do only good in terms of law enforcement and, as a consequence, will do only good for those for whom law enforcement works on behalf of—that is, communities.

We cannot expect our law enforcement agencies to do all the things that we require of them whilst their hands are tied behind their backs. I take the view that the various criminal entities out there, and certainly there are many, who are involved in crime for the purpose of money are in a form of business. I do not want to cast aspersions on businesspeople, but in the business of crime, as with any other business, you would be looking to where you could maximise your return on capital, where you could actually work out the threats that are posed to you or the industry that you are in, and you would adopt a line of least resistance, or at least a position where you could maximise your return on capital. If we have holes in our law enforcement detection systems that deprive us of using proper detection and investigative powers, we are inviting that sort of criminal business to be visited upon us in the areas where there is a void in those powers. This legislation, with the support of both sides of the parliament, seeks to redress that. This legislation seeks to ensure that Queensland police have the same powers of detection and investigative arrangements as apply to other law enforcement agencies throughout the country. This legislation does a lot to ensure that those men and women who put on their uniform and go out day to day to protect us have the powers that they need to ensure that those people who would do us harm have a lesser chance of getting away with it. I think this is a good piece of legislation. It is certainly a good piece of cooperation on both sides of the House in terms of, firstly, detecting the holes that exist in the law enforcement regimes and, secondly, cooperating with a view to remedy that.

See this speech in context