Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 and recommendations put forward by the independent Blunn review. Australia enjoys a culture that respects personal privacy. Every Australian values their right to have private conversations. Under current legislation the government is responsible for ensuring its citizens’ privacy is protected—protection which I, as an Australian citizen, value just as much as anybody else. This interception bill will not change that. But first let me tell you a bit about my background and why I am so keen to participate in this debate.

I was formerly a member of the Victorian Police Force for 17 years—seven years as a detective, including four years service at the organised crime squad, where the crew which I was a member of investigated serious crime networks, including the notorious Carlton crew in Melbourne, which has a reduced membership due to the underworld killings. In my experience, one of our biggest problems is the evolution of technology and the criminal community’s growing ability to use technology to their advantage in evading police.

The criminals—and I know this—watch TV crime shows like LA Law and CSI simply to learn skills in forensic crime techniques to avoid detection. Criminals have become experts from law enforcement tools such as DNA, listening devices and telephone intercepts. I should also point out that crime shows have it easy. I am always impressed how in a 30-minute episode a homicide, rape or drug case can be solved, with a major twist at the end to conclude the episode—but, importantly, with a confession just to let the viewers know they have got their man.

In reality this rarely happens. The majority of homicide investigations take weeks, months and sometimes years to complete. Detectives dedicate every breath they take to solving serious crimes, and that is why this legislation is so important. In reality, crime shows are well off the mark, but I can understand why. Good television does not consist of a detective slugging away on a keyboard preparing an affidavit for an entire episode. It would take 50 episodes to cover a detective just compiling one warrant for a complex investigation to put together a telephone intercept, which most likely would comprise at least 30 pages. Why such long affidavits? Simply, the matter must go before a judge and the judge must be absolutely satisfied that the criminal is linked to the crime before he will grant a warrant.

In the Victorian Police the affidavits go back and forth from the investigation team to the special project unit, where the affidavit is subjected to checks and double checks. Once the special project unit is satisfied that all criteria are met, the warrant is again checked by the legal advisers office within the Victorian Police Force. The final step is to take the affidavit and warrant to the Supreme Court’s administrative appeals tribunal, where an independent judge determines whether there are sufficient grounds to grant a warrant. I was listening with interest to the member for Dennison’s comments about the process and how it sounded like it was easy to obtain a warrant. In actual fact it is exceptionally difficult. Police must satisfy exceptionally high standards before a judge will issue a warrant.

Such a cumbersome, time consuming process does impact upon police investigations. I recall in July 1996, while I was a detective at the organised crime squad, a listening device affidavit being prepared over several days. I recall the affidavit was near completion but still needed to go through the rigorous tests of the special project unit. The target for this warrant was Mat Thomas, who at the time was the driver for the now deceased Alphonse Gangitano. Our intention was to install a listening device in the car of Thomas but, because of the high standard of proof required in the affidavit, more preparation time was required. On Sunday, 14 July 1996, a week after starting to compile the affidavit, Mat Thomas drove his Mercedes Benz to the Gatto Nero Bar. When he left, Raymond Oueinati was found dead, kicked to death. Thomas was one of several suspects and was charged with the murder, but was subsequently acquitted. Thomas would say he was innocent. I say he was acquitted of murder. I remember the Monday following the murder and the frustration faced by members of the organised crime squad—knowing that, were the process for obtaining the warrant made easier, what additional information would have been obtained and supplied to the jury had police had a listening device installed in Thomas’s car immediately after the death of Oueinati.

I make the point that police investigations are all about timing. The quicker police can respond, the greater the likelihood of solving crimes. The longer it takes for police to prepare affidavits for listening devices and telephone intercepts, the longer the suspect is able to prepare and calm their nerves and be mindful of what they say. Those in this House who believe the issuing of a warrant is a tick and flick exercise have no idea of the reality of how difficult this task really is and the high legal benchmark that is required.

Other important aspects of this bill under ‘B-party interceptions’ will allow police to cater for criminals who phone swap. This is a simple technique. Again, at the organised crime squad, on numerous occasions the prime target would have dinner with associates and would make calls from the phone of an associate. The prime target would be aware that most likely their own phone was tapped but would also be aware that police would not be able to intercept the phone calls made on the associate’s phone. This legislation will fill that hole and enable police to predetermine what the target will do and intercept crime related calls made by them on the phone of an associate.

B-party interceptions in this legislation could also be used by police to counter criminals who use public phones to call associates. I ask you: why would a drug trafficker stop day after day to make phone calls from a public phone to the same person but never from their own mobile phone? Simply, they are up to no good. But, until this legislation goes through, police only have the ability to monitor the drug trafficker’s phone, not the associate whose phone they have called from the public phone. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the current legislative framework actually protects these modern day criminals from having their illegitimate communications intercepted, simply because of the high legislative benchmark that is needed to be reached before police can obtain a warrant.

It is undoubtedly important to ensure that the interception capabilities of the police are balanced against the protection of Australian citizens’ right to privacy. This is greatly important. But there is a huge benchmark required to be reached by police to take out warrants and they must satisfy a judge. In conclusion, I strongly support this bill.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context