House debates

Thursday, 5 February 2009

Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008

Second Reading

12:29 pm

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

in protecting society, as the member for Denison says. It is not an easy job. That job is ever changing and we must provide our men and women in blue with the tools that they need to be able to do the job on our behalf. That is essentially what this bill is about today.

I will go to some of the aspects of it. This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to facilitate access by the Queensland law enforcement agencies to telecommunication interception powers. This will give Queensland law enforcement agencies access to the same investigative tools as all other police forces around the country. The amendment will provide clarity and substantial detail about exactly who has the authority to issue evidentiary certificates, to listen in on telephones and voicemails, and read text messages and emails as they apply to other jurisdictions. The amendment in the bill does not create or expand powers of authorisation of persons and therefore is unlikely to have any financial impact, but it does give the Queensland police, as a law enforcement agency under that sovereign state, the ability to access telephone intercept powers.

As the member for Denison will recall—we rely on his learned views—we dealt with this matter in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission back in 2007. In September 2007, in the midst of an inquiry that the ACC did into the future impacts of serious and organised crime on Australian society, one of the things that we were determined to look at was the contemporary measures available to our law enforcement agencies to combat serious and organised crime. One of the things that stood out boldly, quite frankly, in the course of that investigation conducted by the joint parliamentary committee was the fact that the Queensland police were the only policing organisation in the Commonwealth who did not have powers to access telephone intercepts. That meant that, when the Queensland police participated in serious and organised crime detection or investigation, they attempted to do those investigations and operations where they needed telephone intercept ability in partnership with the Australian Crime Commission, because—as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, and as the member for Denison is certainly aware—that organisation has the power of telephone intercepts and can apply it throughout the Commonwealth. Other than by entering into a partnership arrangement with the Australian Crime Commission, the Queensland police were not able to participate in what I know to be one of the most significant detection methods deployed by our law enforcement agencies across the country in addressing serious and organised crime—that is, telephone interception.

The committee was made aware of the inability of the Queensland police agencies to access telephone intercept warrants. We took evidence from Detective Chief Superintendent Barnett of the Queensland Police Service, and this is what he said to the committee:

The QPS, in not having telephone interception powers, is unique as a policing jurisdiction within Australia. Consequently, partnerships with policing agencies that can facilitate access to telecommunications intercept, TI, powers are often critical to QPS investigations targeting significant criminal entities and networks. Every major investigation conducted between the ACC and the QPS has utilised telephone interception as a key investigative strategy and this support will continue to be critical to the QPS investigations targeting serious and organised crime.

Chief Superintendent Barnett indicated that attempts have been made in the past to facilitate the introduction of telephone intercept powers in Queensland but that these had not been successful. Because they had not been successful domestically, within the sovereign ability of that state, he was quite open in indicating the reliance of the Queensland police on acting in partnership with the Australian Crime Commission in any investigation to target serious and organised crime, because a key investigative tool for those investigations has been and is, right across the country, telephone interception.

The committee, during the course of that inquiry, raised this matter with the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. The department, particularly the head of the telecommunications and surveillance branch, confirmed that agencies such as the ACC and the AFP, and agencies in every other state, had the ability to deploy these powers. As was indicated from the Commonwealth’s perspective in that respect, there is only one police force, the Queensland Police Service, that does not have interception powers. The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission also does not have interception powers. These agencies are currently working their way forward with our colleagues in the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General and with us to look at the interception powers of the Queensland police.

That was the position of the Commonwealth in trying to broker an arrangement with the Queensland government to look at the development of interception powers in Queensland. It becomes significant in terms of policing if one of our law enforcement bodies does not have powers in the detection of serious organised crime. That makes a significant chink in the armour that protects the community from those who benefit from serious and organised crime. It is not for the Commonwealth to conduct all these investigations—certainly, we play a role in that and we will continue to play a role in targeting serious and organised crime—but there is a domestic responsibility for each of the states of this Commonwealth to do the same and to work as closely as they can in a collaborative arrangement. That, clearly, was not legally possible in terms of the lack of powers of telephone interception in Queensland. A consequence of this—and I may be going into a little bit too much detail about the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission and its deliberations in terms of the inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian societywas that the committee recommended in September 2007 in recommendation 4:

… that the Commonwealth and Queensland governments collaborate to expedite the granting of telecommunications interception powers to the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission.

That was the genesis of this bill coming before us today. Certainly, when that recommendation was made, the member for Denison and I were participating in the committee from an opposition perspective, but let me say it was made with the full support of all members of that committee, and I am very pleased that it is coming to fruition today. I heard Mr Jason Wood—I should remember his seat—speak a little earlier. As a former Victorian police officer, he more than aptly knows the value of having these powers of investigation detection available to domestic police services.

Comments

No comments