Download AD3D0D08FDBB27DB69256A63007C660D

Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to enable the Northern Territory Police Force to be declared an agency for the purpose
of lawfully obtaining warrants for the interception of telecommunications in accordance with the Commonwealth
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The bill will provide an additional and powerful investigative tool in
cases of serious violent and organised crime, and will align the Territory with other law enforcement agencies and
anti-corruption bodies who have telecommunications interception capability. Such capability will enable police to
utilise available technologies to enhance investigation outcomes and crime prevention. At present, the Northern
Police are only able to monitor telephone conversations conducted in close proximity to lawfully installed
surveillance devices. The bill will expand their remote monitoring capability and, in its own way, complement the
recently passed Surveillance Devices Act.
This bill satisfies the requirements of section 35 of the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Interception) Act
1979 and includes the preconditions to be met prior to being declared an agency under that act. The
Commonwealth act is itself the governing Act in terms of telecommunications interception, (Commonwealth
Telecommunications Act) - any state or territory legislation is merely the enabling legislation to facilitate interception
as required under the main act.
As a declared agency, the Northern Territory Police will, under a warrant issued in accordance with the
Commonwealth act, be able to intercept communications passing over the Australian telecommunications system.
Warrants authorise the interception of communications in the investigation of class 1 or class 2 offences. The
purpose of the distinguishing categories of the offences lies in the matters to which the judge issuing the warrant
shall have regard. As such, the lesser class 2 offences will require the issuing judge to have regard to further
matters not provided for in relation to the class 1 offences.
Class 1 offences include murder, kidnapping and equivalent offences and narcotic offences punishable by section
235 of the Customs Act. They also include ancillary offences such as aiding; abetting and conspiracy in relation to
class 1 offences.
In the case of class 2 offences, these include:
·
serious offences involving the loss of life or serious personal injury, or serious risk of loss of life or injury;
serious damage to property in circumstances endangering a person’s safety; trafficking in prescribed substances;
serious fraud; serious loss to the revenue of the Commonwealth or a state or territory; and bribery or corruption of or
by an officer of the Commonwealth, state or territory;
·
offences involving planning and organisation;
·
money laundering offences; and
·
computer-related offences under Part VIA of the Crimes Act 1914.
Generally, it is a requirement that the offence be punishable by imprisonment for life or for a period of at least 7
years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory currently does not have enabling legislation that satisfies the
requirements of section 35 of the Commonwealth act. Currently, with the exception of Queensland, all police
jurisdictions, the Western Australian Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Crime Authority and the New
South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption have enabling legislation in place that provides for
telecommunications interception. In these jurisdictions, with the exception of Tasmania who have yet to be
declared an agency, the use of telecommunications has proved to be an effective and cost efficient tool in the
investigation of serious crime and the ancillary collation of criminal intelligence.
Digital telecommunications and technology afford criminals with the technology to coordinate their criminal
activity almost certainly undetected by the police. In particular, the mobile telephone has become an extremely
effective and relatively inexpensive tool in the commission of crimes. This bill will provide access to technology
for police in order for them to maintain an edge over the criminal element.
Telecommunications interception is also a valuable tool to police in siege and hostage situations. These
incidents often require immediate and expert dialogue between the negotiator and the subject. Whilst the Australian
Federal Police, by legislation, may assist other jurisdictions where they are not an agency, in matters of national
security or breaches of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, the majority of sieges and high risk situations occurring in
the Northern Territory would not satisfy the requirements for Australia Federal Police assistance as these relate to
criminal activity in the Territory.
The Northern Territory Police have, on a number of occasions under the framework of the National Crime
Authority Act, Territory reference been able to lawfully access intercepted product. This access is restricted to those
areas of criminal activity provided for in the act and which have particular relevance to the Territory. However, the
provisions do not provide the Northern Territory with an independent interception capability.
Retrospective analysis of major crimes, drug-related investigations and conspiracy matters committed in the
Northern Territory, indicate a number of examples where telecommunications interception capability, if it had been
available, would have assisted in resolving the crime in question and led to an early apprehension of the suspect.
The advantages associated with telecommunication interception capability for the Northern Territory Police
include:
·
remote installation that avoids the requirement for covert entry on to private premises which is often
difficult and dangerous;
·
added measure for the safety of covert operatives;
·
intercepts are effected almost immediately; the intercept may be placed on all types of telecommunications,
including mobile telephones, facsimile machines and pagers;
·
remote intercepts offer an alternative to surveillance;
·
detection of the interception is not possible; enhanced quality of information attained through interception
as opposed to surveillance devices;
·
significant advantages as an investigative tool, such as providing evidence of target and other crimes;
·
provides evidence to rebut an alibi that may be presented;
·
highly accurate intelligence on criminal activities;
·
rapid identification of criminal networks and associations;
·
powerful insight into the criminal and psychological profile of the target;
·
cost efficient and effective investigative tool; and
·
significantly reduces court costs and lengthy trials as guilty pleas are more likely where
telecommunications interception evidence is overwhelming.
To balance the competing interests of effective law enforcement powers and the privacy of the individuals,
particularly in respect of the abuse of interception powers and responsibility of maintaining security, the
Commonwealth act imposes strict reporting and security arrangements for the agency. The purpose of this bill is to
ensure those requirements are in place and that the Commonwealth act preconditions are adhered to.
Among these safeguards, in addition to judicial authorisation for interception, are the requirements that:
·
The Commissioner of Police keep a record of each warrant issued, and provide a copy of each warrant, or
any instrument revoking a warrant to the Minister as soon as practicable after such warrant or instrument is issued;
·
The Commissioner provide the Minister with a written report concerning the use and communication of
information obtained under each warrant within three months of such warrant being issued;
·
The Minister provide copies of warrants, instruments and reports to the Commonwealth Attorney-General;
·
A comprehensive Annual Report concerning all interceptions is tabled at the end of each financial year;
·
Records of interceptions held by the Northern Territory Police be kept secure from persons who are not
entitled to deal with them and must be destroyed if unlikely to be required for reporting or other permitted purposes;
·
An independent inspecting authority, in this case the Ombudsman, is appointed and responsible for
inspecting the records of the Northern Territory Police to ascertain and report to the Minister on the extent of
compliance by its members with the record keeping, confidentiality and other requirements of the legislation; and
·
The Ombudsman is given wide powers of entry to police premises; powers to access and copy police
records and may require police officers to provide information relevant to inspections.
Overall there must be strict compliance with Part VI Division 4 of the Commonwealth act by the agency and the
preparation of a comprehensive affidavit setting out the reasonable grounds to be relied upon for the issue of the
warrant. In any event, a warrant can only be issued after consideration of the extent to which methods of
investigating the offence or offences that do not involve interception have been used by, or are available to, the
agency.
Given that privacy considerations and controls are catered for in the bill, it is not envisaged that there will be
significant privacy and civil liberty implications associated with the use of telecommunication interception. To
further allay these concerns, the circumstances under which police may be permitted to apply for interception
warrants have been defined and may only be issued by a Judge having regard to the likelihood of the use of the
service by the person under investigation, that the information to be obtained is likely to assist in the investigation of
the relevant offences and other like matters.
The bill will come at some cost. Once the Northern Territory Police have been declared an agency under the
Commonwealth act, further preconditions require the agency to enter into an agreement relating to costs associated
with the enabling and execution of interception warrants.
Given also the strict security and confidentiality requirements, it is also envisaged that dedicated police staff will
be employed to administer and execute interception warrants. There will also be some infrastructure costs
associated with the development of telecommunications interception capability. However, the advantages outlined
far outweigh the costs and do much to enhance the professionalism and response capabilities of the Northern
Territory Police.
This legislation is modelled on similar legislation already enacted in Tasmania, Western Australia, South
Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. These agencies have benefited from conducting telecommunications
interception for some years and it has proved an effective tool in crime investigation and incident resolution.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.