Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012 in relation to some changes to the anticorruption infrastructure in the state of Victoria. The bill proposes to amend the principal act, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, to provide for the removal of the Victorian Office of Police Integrity, the OPI, which has been abolished, and the substitution of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission—which strikes me as a very literal name—as an authority eligible to intercept telecommunications. In order for an agency to be declared, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that the law of the requesting state makes provision for the agency to comply with the original Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act's record-keeping, reporting and inspection obligations. The state must also enter into an agreement to pay all expenses associated with the issues of warrants issued to the agency.

The bill provides for Victoria to legislate for a public interest monitor which will be given specific oversight functions. These include the power to question officers of agencies and to make submissions on any application for a warrant by a declared agency. The bill also makes consequential provisions to the Taxation Administration Act 1953, the Privacy Act 1998 and the Crimes Act 1914 to substitute the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission for the Office of Police Integrity in those statutes. Clearly, the Victorian government supports these particular measures.

As the bill's explanatory memorandum states, Victoria's parliament has recently passed the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011 and the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 to establish these two new oversight bodies. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission will have a broad jurisdiction, as the name implies, responsible for investigating, exposing and suppressing corruption involving or affecting all public officials in Victoria. Section 16 of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Amendment (Investigative Functions) Act will repeal the Police Integrity Act 2008 of Victoria, abolishing the Office of Police Integrity and enabling the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission to exercise its functions in relation to all Victorian public officials, including the police.

I want to point out the hard work that Australian security agencies do at the moment in protecting our freedoms and the outcomes they achieve in making Australia a safer place. I certainly get the impression that not all Australians are aware of the threats that have been faced by our country over the last few years and the seriousness of the plots that have been foiled by our intelligence and law and order agencies. I will not go into all the details, but members in this place would be very familiar with some of the very serious plots that members of our community have made against government infrastructure and military infrastructure, and clearly our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are having a great deal of success in disrupting this sort of activity. However, there are some dark clouds on the horizon. The Labor Party has consistently targeted our national security agencies and our border protection agencies with both funding cuts and personnel cuts. These agencies seem to have become an easy target at every budget for the savings the government believes it needs. Labor's response to escalating violence on our streets and chaos at our borders is to significantly cut the resources that are available to the agencies the Australian people expect to police these things. Customs and Border Protection, our front-line border protection agency, has had a total of almost $26 million cut from its overall budget, and 750 staff have been cut from Customs since Labor came to office.

Labor has also made cuts to the Australian Federal Police. They have had a budget cut of $133 million, meaning they are going to have to stretch their existing resources significantly further. In the last two budgets alone Labor has cut 97 staff and stripped a massive $264 million in funding from the Australian Federal Police, making it even harder for them to protect our communities and enforce national security.

Labor has also attacked the Australian Crime Commission, which has seen their budget cut by $4.5 million, and 36 staff in total have been taken from the agency since the Labor Party came to power. In the context of the Australian Crime Commission, that is a very significant percentage of their resources. In fact, that is 30 per cent of their workforce. Clearly the Australian Crime Commission are under siege from these cuts and they are going to find it very difficult to do the job entrusted to them in the face of these very significant resource setbacks.

I make those points in relation to this bill dealing with law and order and our intelligence agencies in the context of noting what a good job they do. But they are doing that job in defiance of the very difficult circumstances the Labor Party have put them in. In relation to the bill itself, the coalition is satisfied that it does balance access to communications with appropriate independent oversight. I know that the Victorian Liberal government was very keen to get that balance right and has made sure that the privacy of individuals is respected under its new broad based anti-corruption body. Therefore, we support this bill going through the House.

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

The Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012 makes amendments to four Commonwealth acts to facilitate telecommunications interception and access powers for the Victorian Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission. I will not canvass that aspect of what the shadow minister said but it was correct. Telecommunications interception is a very, very powerful weapon for contemporary law enforcement. I know firsthand its importance in protecting the community from not only terrorism threats but also on a day-to-day basis the ravages of serious and organised crime.

In delegating authority to state and territory law enforcement bodies the Commonwealth must be assured of the integrity regimes that apply there to supervise the conduct of those interception powers and the approval of those interception powers. The Victorian government has established an Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission with similar powers to ICAC in New South Wales and similar bodies in other states. I do not know why they did not call it ICAC like everybody else did; they have chosen a slightly different name. This body has the ability to investigate and disrupt issues of corruption within broad based areas in the state of Victoria, including the Victoria Police. As I said, interception is very strictly regulated and, as a consequence, the Commonwealth must be assured. Under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, an agency is not able to be declared an interception agency unless the minister is satisfied that, firstly, the agency is an eligible authority for the purposes of the act; secondly, the state law meets the prescribed oversight arrangements; and, thirdly, that the state has entered into an agreement to pay for interception costs. I also know firsthand how wide ranging those costs can be, particularly in respect of targeted operations.

Much has just been said by the shadow minister about constraints on our law enforcement agencies. I do admire his capacity to politicise anything, including when we are trying to do something with a mutually-beneficial objective, such as increasing the strength of our law enforcement agencies to protect our communities. He knows as well as I do that, in terms of contemporary law enforcement, this is not just about police on the street. This is about having a regime which is very much intelligence based in pursuing serious and organised crime, which has the technology to combat and compete with that deployed by organised criminals, and which can ensure that the act and regulations support the use of those technologies to defeat criminal enterprise. Possibly very similar to our modern-day military, we are moving more and more towards greater use of technology in combating serious and organised crime. My friend failed to mention the 500 additional police in the Australian Federal Police since 2007. This is not just people who are employed under the Australian Federal Police Act; this commitment is based on 500 sworn police officers—people who actually carry a badge and a gun. These are real police, not security guards or office staff.

When it comes to law enforcement, I think it behoves us not to try to politicise these issues but to concentrate on what is necessary to ensure that our police officers—who are charged with the very serious responsibility of protecting our community—have the necessary resources, tools, equipment and regulatory support to allow them to do their job—which is to protect our community. I for one believe that it takes a very special sort of person with a very special sort of courage to wear the police uniform and discharge their duty on behalf of our community. They do a fantastic job and I think we need to work very closely with them to ensure that they have the resources, tools and equipment they need to do the job and protect our communities.

The interception ability is something which I know is absolutely key to addressing serious and organised crime. Increasingly it is only through interception that issues of planning are uncovered so that the police can be in a position to disrupt and, in doing so, prevent criminal enterprise in respect of a particular operation. If you can deter or prevent a crime, you are also protecting those who are potential victims of a crime, because for every crime there must be a victim. So, to some extent, modern-day policing is about preventing criminal enterprise as opposed to do what the criminal lawyers might want to lecture us on, which is: wait for the crime to be committed, then collect the evidence. If you have got enough evidence you make a prosecution.

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

Lawyers: what would they know?

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

I am going to be followed by a former police officer, so I am sure he can take up this line as well.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A military police officer.

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

Former AFP, I think, too. This is part of a suite of technologies that is absolutely crucial for combating serious and organised crime. It is great to see that the Victorians have now come on board with their new organisation, the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission, with the same or similar powers to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. They will be able to delegate, to authorise and to supervise conduct of telecommunication intercepts.

In leaving this debate, one of the points I think must be understood by all of our state and territory jurisdictions is that, whilst we refer to criminals as being a bunch of crooks, the truth of the matter is that they are businesspeople. They will, like any business, pursue a window of opportunity to make a profit. They are profit-based organisations. We need to ensure that we disrupt their profits and their enterprise, and one of the ways we do that is through using modern techniques—particularly, in this case, telephone intercepts.

The bill is an important step in ensuring that state bodies responsible for the detection, investigation and prosecution of serious and organised crime have the ability to access investigative tools which are contemporary in nature and certainly have an absolutely proven track record through most of our police jurisdictions of being the vehicle by which prosecutions have been made. I do not think I need to go on. I think my friend is about to take over and probably continue that line, hopefully supporting our police. I commend the bill to the House.

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

As a former member of the Australian Federal Police and then later the military police as well, I do look for these sorts of opportunities to comment upon these sorts of bills. Some of my best days in the Federal Police were those great moments of driving around, conducting surveillance on people and conducting the searches of people involved with drug crimes. These were some of the great days. I particularly remember once being fully and legitimately authorised to drive across the Harbour Bridge at 130 kilometres an hour. Those were entertaining days. Obviously it was so long ago when you could actually do that in the early afternoon and be able to continue with those sort of speeds, but it is more of a struggle these days with the traffic. But they were all good times. At the reality end, I draw upon that quote from, I think, Greg Norman, who said that you drive for show and you putt for dough. The reality is that with all the really fun stuff in the Federal Police—the driving tasks and the searches and stuff like that—sometimes you actually have to get down to the point of a highly technical analysis and collection of information. I think that is where telecommunications interceptions really come into it.

On behalf of my peers at the time in the Australian Federal Police, I will say that we certainly did not appreciate those shifts that we had to pull. I remember spending a couple of weeks of shifts in an observation post in Randwick in Sydney, listening to people of Chinese origin who were conducting their discussions to do with their drug trade in Cantonese, I believe. It was not really that entertaining listening to people speaking Chinese and just having to record when they were in and when they were out on the sheet of paper. But the reality is that we have moved on. This country has moved on. The technical realities have moved on.

As I said before, as a former member of the Federal Police and now a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I am very much interested in matters to do with telecommunications interception and the integrity and safeguarding of information generated through interception practices. I therefore welcome the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012. I confirm, as I believe the shadow minister did, that the coalition supports the bill. When we consider matters such as this, to do with interceptions and surveillance, we must remember the basic principle about such laws and what they are designed to do. In many ways, it is about the fundamental reason for the existence of government. By this I mean the protection of the people and safeguarding the safety of the public. Every Australian should feel safe in this country knowing that, if required, phone calls, emails and SMSs may be intercepted—of course, with due cause and appropriate controls.

In its many forms, interception surveillance also goes to the detection and action before, during or after the event against terrorism, murder, other violent crimes or crimes against property and stealing. It is about arrests and it is about the collection of evidence. It is about stopping crime, reducing the harm of crime to people in society and the acknowledgement that a little bit of privacy may need to be given up for a greater good. Deep down, we know that this is a trade-off that we must accept, and that is why we provide the powers not only to the state agencies covered in this bill but also to the federal agencies that also deal with the telecommunications interceptions.

It is well understood how important it is that agencies that deal with security and safety of Australians should be well supported—agencies such as ASIS, ASIO, ONA, the AFP and Customs. These are the agencies that, through the collection of intelligence and their activities, stand on the front line of keeping the people of our nation safe. We must arm them not only with laws such as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act but with the resources in terms of money, facilities, equipment and, of course, staff that they require. However, the risks that we run by not providing such resources may not always be apparent or immediately obvious. Emerging problems may get missed either overseas or in our communities. Sometimes those problems may not translate into being a scary threat, but every piece of the puzzle needs to be collected to ensure that Australians are not at risk of violent or property crimes. Sometimes the lack of resources may be apparent in the reduction of services or less efficient services being delivered. By way of example, the $10.4 million cut by the government to Customs for airport passenger facilitation and processing results in extending cues for incoming arrivals, such as at Perth International Airport.

As I said before, this bill is about the regime and processes for telecommunication interceptions and related privacy requirements in the agencies in need of being declared under the act. As has already been stated by previous speakers, this bill provides for the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to be amended in order to remove the Victorian Office of Police Integrity, an organisation being abolished, and to substitute as a declared agency the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, or IBAC. It also provides the mechanism for the IBAC's overseeing organisation, the Victorian Inspectorate, to also receive and use intercepted communications. In addition to these two agencies, the establishment of the Victorian Public Interest Monitor is supported by this bill. Its purpose is to represent public interests during applications for a range of covert warrants by Victorian agencies. The purpose of the primary act is absolutely to regulate the way in which declared agencies receive intercepted information and then how that information can be used and then communicated, all with regard to emphasis on privacy and integrity considerations.

When we speak of the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the Victorian Inspectorate and the establishment of a Victorian Public Interest Monitor, they are state agencies and they are funded by the Victorian taxpayers. Federal agencies are funded collectively by Australian taxpayers, but with the allocation of funds and therefore the accountability for resources determined by this government. So a $42 million cut from ASIO's budget is a case where the government must accept responsibility for possible shortcomings of that agency's working future. As I said earlier, this is an area of great interest for me as a person that has in the past worked with monitoring interception equipment in a law enforcement setting. Now, through the Joint Committee, I am concerned with how integrity matters are dealt with given the value and the breadth of information that can be obtained from the equipment.

It is right that such legislation is passed in order to ensure that state agencies such as the IBAC, the Victorian Inspectorate and the Victorian Public Interest Monitor can make use of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act or oversee the application of their powers. It is good that the states are putting in place bodies such as IBAC to ensure that the people of Victoria can have confidence in the institutions that administer the applications of government and the public sector in the state of Victoria.

To conclude, I will say that I endorse and support this bill but, as someone that has always believed wholeheartedly in the safety of this nation and above all its people, I do not endorse the cuts to Customs, the AFP or ASIO that potentially place Australians at risk from criminals and terrorists, as well as the creation of inefficiency and stovepipes through cutbacks in passenger and cargo security handling and entry points about this nation.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to represent the Attorney-General in presenting this bill. I thank all members—the members for Stirling, Fowler and Cowan—for their contributions to the debate and also for their strong support for the agencies that help keep this country and our community safe. Most especially, I thank them for their contribution to this debate on the Telecommunications Interception and other Legislation Amendment (State Bodies) Bill 2012.

The bill makes amendments to four Commonwealth acts to facilitate telecommunications interception and access powers for the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission, now called the IBACC. The Victorian government has announced that it is abolishing the existing Office of Police Integrity and is establishing the IBACC. The IBACC will become the body responsible for overseeing the Victoria Police and other public officials. The newly established Victorian Inspectorate will oversee the IBACC.

The bill also makes amendments to support the establishment of a Victorian Public Interest Monitor, or PIM. The Public Interest Monitor body has been established to represent the public interest during applications for a range of covert warrants by Victorian agencies. Other states, such as New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia have already established anticorruption commissions which can access these interception act investigative powers. It is intended that the Victorian IBACC will be given access to the same investigative interception act powers that are available to corresponding bodies in the other states. I commend the legislation.

Question agreed to.