Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak today on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. The main purpose of this bill is to facilitate Queensland’s entry into the telecommunications interception regime and also to remedy some significant errors in the act. It is worth noting the Attorney-General’s remarks in his second reading speech on this bill when he said:

The inclusion of Queensland agencies will mean that the interception regime established by the T(IA) Act will become truly national. Queensland is currently the only jurisdiction whose law enforcement agencies do not have interception powers.

We should note that it is actually not this bill itself which gives Queensland law enforcement agencies their access to interception powers; those powers need to come from the Queensland parliament. But, before the Attorney-General can declare that an agency is eligible under the T(IA) Act, the states need to have their own legislation in place to demonstrate their accountability and record-keeping requirements of Commonwealth law. For Queensland to be able to comply with these requirements, the Commonwealth must recognise in the law the existence and role of the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland. Once this is in place, Queensland can then enact its own laws relating to telephone intercepts without running into inconsistency problems between Queensland law and Com-mon-wealth law. Queensland will give the Public Interest Monitor the oversight role in the application process that is demanded by Commonwealth law and the Commonwealth must give specific reference to the Public Interest Monitor so that there can be that consistency between the two regimes. That is the main purpose of this bill and its main provisions reflect that.

In the Queensland parliament, in August 2008, the Premier announced in her ministerial statement:

Members may recall that there have been ongoing discussions between the state and federal governments about making phone-tapping powers available to Queensland law enforcement agencies. I am very pleased to advise the House today that the Prime Minister has written to me confirming that the Australian government will now support telecommunication interception powers for the Queensland Police Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Kevin Rudd has accepted that these powers should be subject to the involvement of the Public Interest Monitor, an independent barrister who represents the public interest. Phone tapping (sic) is a highly effective law enforcement power, but it is also a highly intrusive one. We have always said that we would consider these powers, but we have also said that they had to come with appropriate safeguards for people’s privacy, and we make no apologies for that.

I would like to emphasise the opposition’s view that we understand the need for telecommunications interceptions, but we certainly recognise that there must be strong and appropriate safeguards for people’s privacy. That is a balance that all agencies need to strike. It is important that Queensland come into what needs to be a national regime, and a loophole such as has previously existed may have allowed for interceptions that could have led to detentions and arrests for serious and organised crime not taking place because of conversations that were unable to be intercepted in Queensland.

It is worth noting that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act is an act that prohibits interception of communications passing over a telecommunications system. It does not allow it. It prohibits it in a general sense, but then it provides a number of exemptions. It is under these exemptions that the ‘phone tapping’, to use the vernacular, takes place. The exemptions under the T(IA) Act include to the officers of law enforcement and security agencies under warrant, if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the telecommunications system is being used by a person engaged in, or likely to be engaged in, or reasonably suspected to be engaged in, activities or purposes that are prejudicial to security. So a warrant needs to be obtained. The involvement of the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland takes place at that stage and there is appropriate supervision of the process. The bill also makes certain technical amendments to correct and clarify the definitions of ‘certifying officer’ and ‘appropriate authorising officer’. I do not feel that I need to elaborate further on those technical amendments.

In conclusion, the interception of telecommunications is an important weapon in the fight against serious and organised crime. This bill enables Queensland agencies, the Queensland Police Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission, to use that weapon and it harmonises the regime with the oversight arrangements in use in that state. This bill has the support of the opposition.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. It is interesting that the genesis of this legislation goes back to the 1980s in Queensland, to the Fitzgerald inquiry, which ran from 1987 to 1989. Subsequent to the Fitzgerald inquiry the CJC, as we call it in Queensland—the Criminal Justice Commission—was established. Then we had the Queensland Crime Commission, which was merged into one entity, which we know today as the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission. As someone who was practising in the Brisbane CBD as a lawyer, whose office was directly across the road from the Fitzgerald inquiry when it was being held and whose firm gave significant advice to people in relation to the Fitzgerald inquiry, I am quite happy to speak on this bill. The regulatory investigating bodies that were established in Queensland subsequent to the Fitzgerald inquiry continue on in different guises, but they are still there, in a uniquely Queensland experience, to look at corruption in the police force and elsewhere.

In that very interesting time a great phalanx of celebrities and police officers were charged and convicted. Politicians, people involved in law firms and banks, and real estate agents came before the commission. So many people were involved in the inquiry over that three-year period. Tony Fitzgerald is to be commended for it. The recommendations of the inquiry were taken up by the National Party government, and the National Party Premier at the time is to be commended for that. Bill Gunn, then the Acting Premier of Queensland, is to be commended for the courage he showed in establishing the Fitzgerald inquiry. Tony Fitzgerald is to be commended for his hard work and integrity in the circumstances. Subsequent Labor governments and coalition governments in the 1980s, under Borbidge and Sheldon, continued the process.

Queensland is very concerned about these sorts of issues, but sadly we have been left out in this particular area of interception. This legislation is a very Queensland response. It ensures that Queensland law enforcement agencies have the same telecommunications interception powers as other law enforcement agencies throughout Australia.

We have a peculiar entity in Queensland, known as the Queensland Public Interest Monitor, PIM, which has a particular role in Queensland. This bill recognises the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland and introduces that particular person into the interception regime. It enables the Public Interest Monitor to make submissions to the judge or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal member considering the interception warrant application made in the circumstances by the Queensland Police Service or the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission. In those circumstances this legislation allows for those agencies to be declared interception agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act but allows the Public Interest Monitor to continue the role which he currently plays in the circumstances—and there is only one Public Interest Monitor, and that is in Queensland.

The Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, and her predecessor, Peter Beattie, also argued for a long time that Queensland ought to be brought into the national scheme. It is inexplicable that the Howard government refused to cooperate in this regard. I am pleased to say that the current Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has accepted the role of the Public Interest Monitor, who is an independent barrister who represents the public interest. His role is now recognised in the system. I just cannot understand why the previous government opposed it in the circumstances. The Attorney-General has introduced this legislation, which will fix up an anomaly.

We are well served in Queensland by the current Public Interest Monitor, whose name is Colin Forrest. He is a barrister at the Queensland bar. He began his legal career as an associate to Justice Michael Kirby, the then President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Subsequently Colin relocated to Brisbane. He has been practising for about 17 or 18 years as a barrister in Queensland and for a couple of years before that as a solicitor. It has been my privilege to find him a tremendous adversary in court proceedings in Queensland. He is a very fine lawyer. He practises in family law, estate law and administrative law. He is a tough opponent and he is a man of real morality, ethics and integrity.

He is a very good choice for the role of the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland. He actually serves as a part-time member of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. He also finds time to work as a part-time member of the Commonwealth Social Security Appeals Tribunal. And he is a wonderful lecturer and speaker at many conferences in Queensland, particularly for the Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland. So Colin is the right person for the job.

He has a couple of deputies with him to perform the role and he has given very detailed reports in his role. He wrote an interesting article last year for Proctor, the solicitors’ magazine in Queensland. He said this, and I think it is right:

It is probably fair to say for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, the role the Public Interest Monitor (‘the PIM’) plays in the criminal justice system is little known or understood.

That is probably true, but there is an oversight, a watchfulness. He is entitled to ask questions of those people who make applications for warrants. He is entitled to stand for the public and play that monitoring role. I think someone like Colin, with intelligence and all-round knowledge of legal proceedings and law in Queensland, is just the right person for the job.

He has to report six-monthly to the parliament, through the police minister. As I say, he has a couple of deputies who also serve in this role: Ms Karen Carmody, a barrister, and Mr Peter Lyons, a solicitor. It is an interesting role and I would commend people in Queensland to know what kind of role these people perform. They discharge their duties on a part-time, fee-for-service basis, and they charge the Queensland government via the Queensland Police Service budget at $300 per hour plus GST—so he told me in a conversation I had with him. But he has been frustrated for several years. In the Proctor article he said:

For several years, the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments have not been able to agree on the introduction of telephone interception powers in Queensland because of the central ‘front end’ and ‘back end’ monitoring role proposed by the Queensland Government for the PIM in the process. For some years, the PIM has supported the introduction of these powers—

which are the basis of the legislation currently before the House. But the Public Interest Monitor could not get the previous government to agree. The article went on:

Appropriate resourcing of the PIM is likely to be the challenge. Currently, the QPS and the CMC bring around 80-100 applications per year between them for covert surveillance warrants. Estimates as to the number of telephone interception warrants that they are likely to bring are currently around 300-400 per year based on experience in other States.

So it is very important that the Queensland government adequately fund the Public Interest Monitor and the deputies in these circumstances. I think it is very important that the Queensland government resource it properly so the Queensland public can be sure that civil liberties are protected and yet we are vigilant in attacking organised crime, particularly outlaw bikie gangs, who are often engaged in drug and other criminal activities. It is important that the Queensland government do this. If we are going to give the Public Interest Monitor a greater role and more things to do, the Queensland government, when it passes the legislation which is necessary in the circumstances, ought to resource the Public Interest Monitor and his deputies even further.

Colin Forrest says this in his 2006-07 annual report and repeats it in the 2007-08 report:

Discharge of the Public Interest Monitor’s functions requires a delicate balancing of two competing facets of public interest. The first is the public interest in ensuring that serious criminal conduct is detected, prevented and made the subject of successful prosecution by our law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities, particularly during a time of rapid technological change. The second, and no less important, is that fundamental rights of individual members of our community, such as the right to privacy, are respected and interfered with as little as possible in the process of detecting, preventing and punishing that serious criminal conduct. In addition, a commitment to the principle that independent accountability of our law enforcement agencies strengthens the fabric of our democratic society and aids the rule of law has been central to the creation of the office and the discharge of its functions.

You can see why Colin Forrest is the right person for the job in Queensland. In the conclusion to his 2007-08 report he again repeats something he had written in the 2006-07 report, and I think it is worth repeating in Hansard:

I said in last year’s report:-

‘Although the use of covert surveillance devices is often ineffective, due to technical, operational or other reasons, the properly targeted, careful use of the covert surveillance warrant powers can prove very effective in detecting perpetrators of serious crime in this State, particularly in connection with the production and distribution of illicit drugs. At the same time it is my view that the balancing act mentioned earlier in this report with respect to public interest considerations is being appropriately addressed. Charges and prosecutions arising from covert police investigative operations continue to increase.

The QPS has complied with its obligations pursuant to the PPRA in the manner in which it maintains its records and its records contain all the information and documentation required by the PPRA. Those records are maintained and kept in secure facilities with effective procedures in place controlling access.’

Again, those words are entirely worth repeating this year. The ‘front-end’ and ‘back-end’ monitoring functions of the PIM continue to be valuable features of the criminal justice system in this state.

I commend the bill before the House. It is good for Queensland and it is good for the prosecution of criminal activity in Queensland, particularly in the area of illicit drugs. I think it is about time Queensland came into the 21st century in this area. I am pleased to support the bill.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. The passing of this bill is well and truly overdue. It is absolutely crazy that in 2009 the Queensland state police still do not have the ability to target organised and serious crime. I heard what the previous speakers from the government side said and I know that under the previous Howard government there was grave concern expressed by members about the Public Interest Monitor. My personal view is that, if the Queensland state government really wants to push this, so be it, because I would rather have it with the Public Interest Monitor than have the ridiculous situation which we previously had where serious and organised criminals basically had a free run in Queensland. That situation finally will change.

Bizarrely, Queensland was the only jurisdiction in Australia which did not have interception powers. As a former member of the Victoria Police organised crime squad, it was only when I was on the Australian Crime Commission that I actually became aware of this. I could not actually believe this was the case. The introduction of this telecommunications interception amendment bill will finally bring an end to this situation and have Queensland joining the rest of the state law enforcement agencies. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission has made recommendations several times calling on the Commonwealth and Queensland governments to work together to expedite the granting of interception powers to the Queensland police and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, most recently in September 2007. I add that I am a member of the committee, which obviously is a bipartisan committee, so all the members were trying to do the right thing by the Queensland police force.

Criminal syndicates are quite adept at using technology to carry out their crimes. The Australian Crime Commission’s investigation into organised crime revealed that outlaw motorcycle gangs and illicit drug manufacturers are thriving in Queensland, with police unable to monitor their criminal activities that take place using mobile phones and emails. Queensland police are currently unable to access telecommunication interception powers for any investigation other than joint operations and Commonwealth matters. As a result, Queensland police are often reliant upon partnerships with other law enforcement agencies that can facilitate access to phone-tapping powers. Three years ago the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission released a report recommending the introduction of phone-tapping powers for Queensland. This amendment will facilitate the implementation of phone-tapping powers by accommodating the bureaucratic role that the Public Interest Monitor has in law enforcement in Queensland. The Public Interest Monitor oversees all applications for surveillance device and covert search warrants in Queensland. Queensland police can already execute surveillance warrants and place listening devices. The amendment will enable Queensland investigators to execute warrants for telephone intercepts—the missing link in Queensland police powers.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And about time too, isn’t it.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally agree: it is about time. The Queensland government has for some time feared that without specific reference to the PIM in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act Queensland legislation would be inoperative under section 109 of the Constitution due to its inconsistency with other provisions in the act. Although a specific reference to the PIM in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act had been deemed unnecessary by the previous government, by recognising the PIM’s oversight role in application processes for an interception warrant by the Queensland law enforcement agencies the Queensland government can introduce legislation that will comply with the accountability framework established in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act without fear that legislation would be inoperative.

Telecommunications interception is an essential and vital tool in law enforcement and has been used with great success in some of the most complex criminal investigations, including the tragic murders of Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller in 1988 in Victoria and locating fugitive gangland figure Tony Mokbel in 2006. It has also been used by law enforcement agencies when investigating the illicit drug and organised crime activity. In the world of organised crime and in fighting terrorism and even in relation to homicides and rapes, in nearly every serious investigation police mount, one of the greatest tools is telephone interceptions. Two-thirds of telephone intercepts are used in investigating drug-related crime. Extending phone-tapping powers to Queensland police will greatly assist the Queensland drug investigation unit and Task Force Hydra, the unit investigating outlaw motorcycle gangs, in solving serious drug-related crimes.

The implementation of telecommunications interception powers in Queensland has been recommended many times by both state and federal law enforcement agencies and is long overdue. This amendment will provide consistency between all states and territories and facilitate a national approach for law enforcement agencies. One thing which greatly concerns me at the moment when it comes to law enforcement is the government’s cutbacks to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. Where this is relevant is that a number of state-seconded police who have been working with the Australian Crime Commission in Queensland and other states have been forced to go back to their own jurisdictions. In fact, I believe the figures are up to 50 members, of whom 16 are investigators. That greatly concerns me. I mentioned how the Queensland police work with other authorities such as the Australian Federal Police. Again in Queensland we have seen 14 AFP members being offered redundancy packages. To me this seems crazy when yesterday the Prime Minister was talking about a stimulus package to create jobs and now the minister has put the AFP and the ACC in a position where they are forced to offer redundancy packages.

Of great concern is what is occurring in the Sydney offices of the Australian Federal Police. Their counterterrorism investigators work on a 12-week budget cycle but, after 10 weeks, investigators are being told: ‘We have run out of money. There is no overtime in the budget. You have to stand down and go home.’ They have ongoing investigations. To me, this is crazy. But even more concerning is the intelligence areas in the Sydney offices specifically looking at counterterrorism. If a member is transferred, seconded or receives a promotion, they are not being replaced. It is really unusual for police members to actually speak publicly on this or, as in this case, speak to me. I suppose they feel comfortable because of my former role in the Victorian police force, and I thank them for that. What is greatly concerning them, especially when it comes to the area of intelligence, is that they have intelligence reports sitting in the offices of the AFP counterterrorism squad in Sydney that are just not being looked at. We have highly qualified and trained analysts who, once they leave or are transferred, are not being replaced. Information in reports is sitting in trays and not being looked at. Of course, if a report comes across a table that is regarded as a matter that quite obviously needs to be acted on immediately, they are doing that, but the great concern I have is that in the world of crime and investigations not everything is apparent.

My concern is this: we may have the crazy situation of an intelligence report sitting around that anyone who picks it up will think, on the face of it, ‘This means nothing; there is nothing in this report.’ That is a great danger because you never know what little piece this report may be in a huge puzzle. You only have to go back to the September 11 attacks to see that. I can tell the House and members of the Australian public that the planning for those attacks took over four years. It took over four years for the offenders to perpetrate those attacks. What actually happened was that there were all these law enforcement agencies who had bits of information, but they never swapped those bits of information. The offenders were undertaking pilot training and the person involved in training them was greatly concerned. He reported it, so the local authorities were aware of it. There were other reports coming over from Afghanistan saying to expect some sort of reprisals. They were talking about planes et cetera. There was all this information coming in and no-one put the pieces together.

When it comes to Australian law enforcement, the one great thing we have is the ALIEN and ACID databases, where high-level intelligence is regularly passed across our law enforcement agencies. If we go to what will happen in Queensland in the future, we can have state police monitoring phone conversations and information may be heard over the phones. At that time it may not be apparent how vital that information is. They may put in an information report on that which goes on to ALIEN and ACID, which are databases for law enforcement agencies. Just so members are aware, not everyone has access to them. You must have specific knowledge and authority to actually have access to the information. The only way these law enforcement agencies can work is if we ensure that any information from the Queensland police, or any other state police force, from anyone who rings up a hotline or from the Queensland, New South Wales or Victorian offices of the AFP is collected and acted upon.

Finally, I want to make a point about the Australian Crime Commission. I welcome the appointment of the new director of the Australian Crime Commission, John Lawler. I think that is a great appointment and I congratulate the government on that. But, gee, what a tough task he has. Soon he is going to be doing investigations himself the way the cutbacks are going. I think the ACC are down to fewer than 15 or so actual permanent investigators employed by them. We are talking about over 600 staff down to 15 permanent ones. To my knowledge, by March all the police officers seconded from Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania are going to be taken back by their own units.

When we are talking about this stimulus package, what greatly concerns me is that it has been revealed in the Australian Crime Commission hearings that serious and organised crime rips away $10 billion each year from the public, whether it be money seized from selling drugs or money laundering. It is a major issue in this country. That is $10 billion we could actually be going after to put back into the Queensland police force to assist, as we heard before, with all these warrants under this new regime of legislation. The way a telephone intercept warrant works is that someone eventually has to sit down and monitor the calls. Organised and serious crime does not work from nine to five. It works after hours. Why? Because that is the obvious time for most of these deals to be done. That is why you need to make sure the Queensland police and all the police forces around the country, including the AFP and the ACC, have the funding to make sure they have the manpower available to listen to what comes over the lines of the telephone intercepts. That is something which we need to ensure happens.

I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would force the Australian Federal Police to offer redundancy packages in all areas, right across the field. I am greatly concerned with what is happening in the air marshal program. I understand that that program is one of those areas where, for security reasons, we do not want the public to know how many air marshals are out there. But what concerns me is that redundancy packages are being made available right across the board—it does not matter whether it is counterterrorism, air marshals or members of the child exploitation units. That urgently needs to be addressed. As a previous member of the Victorian police force, having worked closely with the Australian Federal Police and having dealt with members of associations of state and territory police across the country, I can say that members are greatly concerned with what is happening at the moment. I will call a spade a spade: when it comes to telephone interceptions I am on the record as saying that things need to change and that what was going on was absolutely outrageous. I stood up and said that and I was, I suppose, having a go at my own government. In opposition I will say the same things: when it comes to tackling organised and serious crime, this new government must do the right thing by the law enforcement agencies.

I was taken aback by the Prime Minister’s 40-minute address when he talked about security and basically beat his chest when talking about what he was going to do. It all sounded fantastic, and it got a really good run the next day in the papers. The Prime Minister spoke about no longer having an office of homeland security. The government promised an office of homeland security in the previous election, but they have walked away from that. They said that they did so on expert advice. What has happened to the money for the office of homeland security? It has gone. They looked at other areas, including considering having a national school for counterterrorism, or something similar. Do not just consider this; actually do it. That is the important message.

At the moment the Australian public would think that as nothing has happened to us, everything is fine. We see no terrorist attacks and everything seems to be going fairly well. Well, if you look at the papers from the last couple of days in Melbourne and Sydney, you will see that a number of people have just been convicted and sentenced for looking at creating terrorist attacks in Australia. They have been given tough sentences, as they should. I would like to remind the public of that. I would also like to congratulate all the police and law enforcement agencies who worked on that case. The previous government had to rush through legislation, and I congratulate Kim Beazley, who was the then opposition leader, for supporting that legislation. He knew how serious this potential incident was.

The Australian public must be aware that counterterrorism and security issues are still out there. Look what happened in India not long ago. Who were the terrorists targeting? They were targeting what they call the ‘infidels’. They are people like us—people from Western societies who went to Western hotels. Remember that the people from Muslim backgrounds were pulled out and the Westerners were shot. So I just remind Australians that terrorism is still a threat in Australia and that the government cannot take this for granted. The government’s number one role is to protect Australian citizens, and I call on the government to immediately give the AFP and the Australia Crime Commission their funding back. That is the policy of the opposition, led by Malcolm Turnbull. Finally, it is about time the Queensland police got the telephone interception powers to really target serious and organised crime.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to facilitate access by Queensland law enforcement agencies to telecommunications interception powers. This will give Queensland law enforcement agencies access to the same investigative tools as all other police forces around the country. That access will come only when Queensland’s arrangements comply with the accountability requirements in section 35 of the federal Telecommunication (Interception and Access) Amendments Act.

In upholding the law in Queensland and in helping to bring about a safer community, the Queensland police service has my full support. I acknowledge the commitment and professionalism of all our men and women in uniform. Contrary to what the previous member said about underinvestment in police services, I can say that in my seat of Dawson, the Queensland state government has in Mackay, Whitsunday and Burdekin actually increased police services, and there has been excellent Queensland state government representation by the Mackay state member, who also happens to be the primary industry minister, Tim Mulherin. Tim Mulherin has been a very strong advocate for the police service and for the role of our men and women police officers. He has been at the forefront of lobbying for and obtaining a brand new police station in early 2000. He has also lobbied successfully for an increase in police numbers within the Mackay region.

I am also pleased to say, in response to the statements of the previous speaker, the member for La Trobe, that a brand new police station has been built in the northern beaches area of Mackay. This area is covered by the state member for Whitsunday, Jane Jarrat. Again, she is another advocate for the Police Service. She is passionate about protecting our community, the role and lives of individuals, their properties and their businesses. A couple of years ago, she was also successful in the establishment and building of a brand new police station in the northern beaches area of Mackay. So the Queensland government, and in particular those two local members, have served people in the seat of Dawson very well indeed. They have done an excellent job, and it is a great privilege and honour for me to put them on the Hansard record as having done that. They deserve credit and praise when it comes to supporting our men and women in the Police Service, who do a fantastic job.

The Queensland Police Service is the primary law enforcement agency of the state of Queensland. It fulfils this role throughout my home state of Queensland 24 hours a day, upholding the law and providing assistance to the community when necessary, in times of emergency, disaster and crisis. On this note, I would like to refer to the events of the floodings a year ago in the Mackay region. I saw firsthand the exemplary service of the Police Service. It did a fantastic job, in coordination with our emergency services. It played a fantastic role in facilitating and mobilising as many people as possible, particularly with the effect of the floodings on 8,000 homes. I can report that only in the last couple of months have the last of the people from the 400 homes which were completely flooded out finally returned home.

I would also like to put on the record that the recent rains that have come have caused a lot of psychological trauma. When we do our assessment of flood damage in these regions we often think in terms of dollar value of not only property, lost business and lost production but also possessions that need to be replaced. We do not always count the cost of psychological trauma. Recently, people in my region have become very nervous and upset that more floods might return to the region—and they have done in the regions of Ayr, the Burdekin River, particularly in Giru, and close to Home Hill. I want to send a message to the Police Service in those areas, particularly in Ayr and Townsville: ‘You do a magnificent job. We are proud of our men and women in police uniform and we will always stand by you. You have my full support.’ In the time of disaster and crisis, the Police Service is a true champion of the people.

The functions of the Police Service also include: first, the preservation of peace and good order in all areas of Queensland; second, the protection of all communities in Queensland; third, the prevention of crime; fourth, the detection of offenders and the bringing of offenders to justice; and, fifth, upholding the law generally and providing policing services in an emergency.

The mission of the Queensland Police Force is to serve the people of Queensland, by protecting their lives, their property and by preserving peace and safety, preventing crime and upholding the law in a manner which has regard for the public good and the rights of the individual. Its vision is that of a professional police service, dedicated to excellence and committed to working in partnership with the people of Queensland to enhance the safety and security of our community.

This bill is about putting Queensland in line with other states with regard to its powers to investigate crime by introducing the Queensland Public Interest Monitor. The bill recognises the unique oversight role that the Queensland Public Interest Monitor has in relation to law enforcement matters in Queensland by introducing the Queensland Public Interest Monitor into the interception regime.

The bill will enable the Queensland Public Interest Monitor to make submissions to the judge considering the interception warrant application and to ask questions of the officer applying for the warrant. Importantly, the bill will only permit the Public Interest Monitor to play a role when a Queensland state interception agency seeks a telecommunications interception warrant. Recognition of the Public Interest Monitor in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act will pave the way for Queensland to introduce state legislation that will then enable the minister to consider declaring the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission as interception agencies for the purposes of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

The bill also implements a number of minor technical amendments. Under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, an agency cannot be declared an interception agency unless the minister is satisfied that the law of the requesting state makes satisfactory provision for the declared agency to comply with specified oversight arrangements. These include record keeping, reporting and inspection obligations and the entering into an agreement by the state to pay all expenses connected with the issue of warrants to the agency. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I take some pride in speaking on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 for a couple of different reasons. As I think most people in the House are aware, prior to coming to this place I spent a good many years representing the respective police jurisdictions across this country, and as a consequence I have had a lot to do with the men and women who serve this country well—

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Kerr interjecting

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Wood is the member for La Trobe.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, because we should never take lightly the decision by law enforcement agencies to seek warrants for the interception of telecommunications. It is a very serious matter, and it is an absolutely critical aid for crime fighters. From my past experience in the Australian Federal Police, it was always my understanding that the process of obtaining warrants involved a great deal of work and that they were never handed out on mere speculative theory. This bill creates amendments that allow the inclusion of Queensland’s Public Interest Monitor into the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, which will enable Queensland law enforcement agencies to come under the T(IA) Act.

I think most of us here know that Queensland has always been a unique place with unique people. In fact, from a Western Australian point of view, all the other states are unique and different from mainstream Australia. I appreciate that the history of Queensland has led certain elements and the current state government to believe in the need for the unique position of the public interest monitor to act in what appears to be an oversight role of the actions of the police. That is their decision and far be it from me to question what appears to be a lack of faith by the Queensland government in not only their judiciary but also the parliament itself. That is fine; that is always their call. What I do find interesting is that, when this bill is passed, apparently the police in Queensland will have to go first to the public interest monitor to discuss a warrant and if it is in the public interest before going to the courts to seek the warrant. I would imagine—although I could not find it stated anywhere—that the public interest monitor could then not discuss that matter with any other person. That would have to be a legislative safeguard or prescribed somewhere in order to protect the police investigation. I assume that it is there.

I also understand that at the proceedings in court to seek a warrant the public interest monitor is also there to ensure that individual rights are preserved. I assume by that point that the public interest monitor can argue a point and that the presiding officer of the court will then make a decision on the matter.

It may be my background in the Australian Federal Police and the military police—it is not in the law but it is related somewhat—but I believe that the rights of people are enshrined throughout acts of parliament. Those acts are created and amended by the duly elected representatives of the people, and these are safeguards. The police are responsible for enforcing those laws, and the magistrates and judges are responsible for administering the processes of those laws. It was always my view that if we as police did not have the evidence to support any sort of warrant then it would not be granted. If it was granted by a magistrate and the case was later heard by a court, the original decision to grant that warrant my be reassessed and evidence gained via that warrant could later be rejected as evidence by the court. This is the normal system, by way of a simple explanation.

Of course, I often share the views of my constituents that the judgments by magistrates and judges in local court cases seem to be all too often out of touch with community expectations. Recently there was a case in Perth where two teenagers, a boy aged 15 and a girl aged 14, were told to leave a railway station because they were swearing loudly, using the f-word repeatedly. Transit guards took that action for the sake of good order and for nearby passengers. It was reported that those teenagers then swore in the same manner, showed aggression and fought with the transit guards. The magistrate at the Children’s Court, former Aboriginal Legal Service lawyer Deen Potter, then determined that using the f-word repeatedly did not necessitate the interference of the transit guards. The boy was convicted of kicking a guard in the stomach but, whilst resisting, his elbow was broken.

It is my view that we need to maintain a certain set of standards in this country. Young people growing up in this country should not be exposed to examples of the acceptance of swearing as being normal or appropriate in everyday life. If a young person wants a good job and wants to progress, they need to know that there are many occasions where their prospects will be limited if they cannot express themselves without swearing. Their potential will not be recognised because of such a fault. The last thing we need is a magistrate and, in many ways, a setter of community standards saying that loud and offensive swearing is okay in a public place and that it is not offensive. I, and no doubt a majority of Australians, do not want to be subject to it. I certainly do not want my children asking me what the f-word means. As I have said repeatedly in this place, if you have a go at your children or young people for swearing, do not swear yourself at any time. Do not practise a double standard. Community leaders like that magistrate and indeed all of us should not promote low standards or, worse, the sorts of double standards epitomised as ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

Swearing at police and at those authorised to protect public safety or to provide emergency health care should result in arrests. Swearing in a public place such as public transport stations should be the subject of a single warning and then exclusion from that place. These are the community standards, and I say that it is not a right to be able to swear in such places; it is in fact a responsibility of everyone not to swear in such places. Magistrate Potter has made a mistake and I hope that he has reflected on his decision. It does no individual any good when community standards are thrown away. It will not help those Aboriginal teenagers to take advantage of the opportunities provided by society if they behave in an antisocial way, refuse to comply with an appropriate request and then show aggression towards those responsible for keeping our public transport safe. The transit guards in Perth have my respect, my complete confidence and my thanks for maintaining community standards and safety. It is a pity that some community leaders do no uphold the same standards. It is unbelievable that the parents in that case have asked for an apology and compensation. They should apologise to the transit guards for being parents that have allowed their teenager to grow up with standards of offensive swearing and aggression towards public officials.

That is somewhat of a digression because this matter is about Queensland and their processes. I have tried hard to find information and commentaries on the public interest monitor and the issues with Queensland joining in under the T(IA) Act. There seems to be some opposition from within Queensland to this occurring and I note that the Council for Civil Liberties seems to be against it. Of course, there are no surprises there. I also note that defence lawyers are against it. Surprise, surprise! Yet I think we can be sure that the vast majority of law-abiding Queenslanders are quite comfortable with the modern and highly professional Queensland police force being given every opportunity to quickly and effectively catch and prosecute criminals. I personally think they would be more comfortable with the same system the rest of the country uses without the public interest monitor, but again, that is not up to me or this federal parliament; that will remain a matter for the elected government of Queensland.

It is not the intention of the opposition to oppose this bill. In fact, we support it. I remain concerned about the way Queensland will conduct the process of obtaining warrants but I will look forward to seeing how their inclusion will proceed. I remain confident that the Queensland police will conduct themselves in a manner that truly represents their concern for the people of Queensland and their safety. I also look forward to many successful prosecutions of those involved in the illicit drug trade, offences against children and, in fact, all crimes. I look forward to the capability provided under the T(IA) Act being applied effectively for the people of Queensland and I wish the Queensland police every success in the future.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I would like to thank members for the contributions they have made in this debate on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. At the outset I should respond to one or two comments that have been made, noting that the opposition is supporting this legislation, which the government appreciates. The member for La Trobe referred to allegations of inadequate policing at least, particularly in the area of counterterrorism. This government takes the safety and security of Australians as its primary concern. That is fundamental to the responsibility of government. I remind the honourable member that at the last budget the government provided $191 million or thereabouts to recruit 500 additional Federal Police officers.

Unlike some examples that have been well aired publicly, on which I will not take up the parliament’s time now, I think it is fair to say that our police, intelligence agencies and prosecution authorities have never been working as effectively, both individually but, more importantly, collectively as they have ever been in this country. The current government has done a lot of work and the agencies have done a lot of work to ensure that that occurs. They have developed operational protocols between the respective agencies—that is, when a matter is appropriately an intelligence function, when it is appropriately a policing function and when it does move on to eventual prosecution. It is fair to say that, unlike some dramatic failures in the previous government, some successes we have seen in recent times have been a result of that cooperation. Very useful prosecution guidelines have also been developed in consultation with my department and with the agencies. Agency heads now hold regular meetings. There are regular secondments between the agencies, and there is a program for getting the intelligence and policing functions happening at street level. This was commented upon in the Clarke inquiry in respect of the Haneef matter recently. More work needs to be done in that area to get the agencies, now that they are cooperating tremendously effectively at a federal level, to enhance that cooperation with our state counterparts, but a lot of work is already underway, and it is being undertaken despite 12 years when the previous government had the opportunity of making those sorts of reforms and achieving those sorts of efficiencies.

This bill is an important step in ensuring law enforcement agencies can protect the safety and security of Australians wherever they live. Currently, Queensland is the only jurisdiction whose agencies cannot seek or execute an interception warrant. Passage of this bill will clear the way for Queensland to enact legislation that satisfies the accountability obligations set out in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. By recognising a role for the public interest monitor in this act, Queensland will be able to legislate an oversight role for that body without conflicting with the Commonwealth act. The bill maintains the integrity of the interception regime by prescribing a role for the public interest monitor that recognises its importance to the oversight of police activities in Queensland while respecting the independence and integrity of decision makers, as currently set out in the act. I look forward to receiving future advice from the Queensland authorities regarding the passage of their legislation, which I understand will shortly be introduced into the Queensland parliament. I also look forward to notification that Queensland has completed the remaining statutory tasks required under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to enable me to declare Queensland law enforcement agencies to be interception agencies. I expect this process to be completed by mid-2009. At that point, the interception regime will be for the first time truly a national scheme. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.