Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will support this bill here but reserve our position in the Senate. We do that simply because this is another apparently urgent bill from the government that we were provided with no notice and without the benefit of a government briefing despite requests. It's disappointing, once again, to have a bill sprung on us by the government to fix a legal issue that, on the face of it, should have been identified many years ago.

The Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024 will provide that information received under warrants issued by the AFP was 'not intercepted while passing over a telecommunications system and was lawfully obtained under those warrants, consistent with the parliament's intention'. This bill will retrospectively state that these warrants were not intercepts but were instead valid warrants under the Surveillance Devices Act. It only applies to 11 warrants issued by the AFP and does not change the law going forward. Essentially, this will retrospectively validate the collection of information relating to Operation Ironside, which was an FBI-initiated drug crime investigation taken on in Australia by the AFP. This, in turn, will be relevant for current cases on foot against those who have been charged as a result of the information gathered during Operation Ironside.

The AFP Commissioner announced the results of Operation Ironside on 8 June 2021. It is now 26 November 2024, and the government is legislating about the warrants used in that operation. This is another case of the AFP being better prepared for their media releases than they are for the basic police work needed to stack them up—in this case, ensuring the warrants they issue are valid for the information they are seeking to obtain.

Ensuring the rule of law is complied with and that police and other security agencies are acting within the law is essential work for the Greens. The Greens do not want to stand in the way of the prosecutions for Operation Ironside, but we do want answers about why this legal impediment was not uncovered many years ago if this operation was properly considered and passed through legal channels in the AFP.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contributions on the Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024. This bill makes clear that information collected under specified warrants independently issued to the Australian Federal Police under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Crimes Act 1914 in connection with Operation Ironside was not intercepted while passing over a telecommunication system within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The bill is consistent with the decisions made in the Supreme Court of South Australia by a single judge and by the South Australian Court of Appeal. The bill is targeted in its scope, dealing only with warrants issued in connection with Operation Ironside. The bill does not affect any other previous, current or future AFP operations. I thank the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.