Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Following on from Senator Ludwig, I reiterate my concerns about the process and the time line that we have been given in relation to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006, not just for the committee stage for the Senate inquiry but for dealing with a raft of amendments, new ones being included as of this morning. We have had insufficient time to scrutinise some of the proposals. I want to again put on record my concerns that the good work of the Senate committee and the positive recommendations contained in the chair’s report, the majority report, endorsed by coalition members and Labor Party members—I support the recommendations contained in the chair’s report—should go further, and that is why I made a supplementary report with recommendations which now form the basis of my amendments on behalf of the Australian Democrats.

In that context, like Senator Ludwig, I recognise that there are aspects of the Greens amendment that do have merit. Limiting the operation of the act in relation to concerns we have about privacy infringement or invasion is an important thing to do. Anything that seeks to protect professional, legal or other forms of privilege is meritorious. I happen to think that the Australian Democrat amendment seeks to achieve the same ends. Through you, Temporary Chairman Kirk: Senator Bob Brown, I recommend my amendments, which I think do this in a more comprehensive fashion. I am sure that you will support them if—surprise, surprise!—the numbers are such that your amendment goes down this morning.

Subclauses 2A(2)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the amendment go to the specific issue of professional privilege, be that legal professional privilege, doctor-patient relations, federal and state members of parliament or High Court and Federal Court judges. I acknowledge the worth of that motion, I support the intent and I believe that my amendments seek to do and will achieve a similar thing.

I am concerned, however, about subclause 2A(2)(a) of the Greens’ amendment. I am not sure whether the minister and his departmental advisers will be offering an opinion on their understanding of the consequences of (2)(a) in the Greens’ amendment. Through you, Temporary Chairman: my understanding is that, when you, Senator Brown, specify ‘unless the person is suspected of engaging in the planning of, or other involvement in, terrorist acts or murder’, we are narrowing to a great extent the operation of the act—restricting the use of the entire Telecommunications (Interception) Act solely for the investigation of acts of terrorism or murder. I am not sure whether that is something that the minister can elaborate on, but that is my understanding.

In that case, this becomes a limitation on the operation of the act, and I am not sure whether it strikes the proportioned balance that we have been talking about between the needs of our enforcement agencies in crime fighting and safeguarding and securing the community and, on the other hand, some of the social justice and privacy issues that you and I, Senator Brown, are very concerned about in this debate. I think that there is a strong argument to suggest that this may make the operation of the act too narrow and perhaps does not give sufficient recognition to the needs of enforcement agencies when fighting corruption and other criminal acts—violent assault, sex crime, drug smuggling. I am not sure whether they are knocked out by this provision. If they are not, that would change my view on the entire amendment, so I seek clarification from the government and officials.

That is not because I do not support limitations on this bill. In fact, I am a proponent of safeguards, protections and mechanisms in this bill to ensure that the operation of these warrant regimes is not as far reaching as it currently is. In that respect, I remind the Senate that I have moved amendments that deal with some of these issues—legal, professional and other forms of privilege—as well as other amendments that seek to constrain in some respect the operation of the stored communications and B-party warrants.

Having said that, I am conscious of the need for balance. I understand privacy rights. I know I go on about them a lot in this place, but I do understand that privacy is about balancing the needs of the community—both our personal privacy protections, if you like, and the broader needs of the community. I do not want the government, or the opposition for that matter, to dare suggest that the amendments that I am moving on behalf of my party seek in any way to undermine that aspect of creating a safe and secure society. But, as I and others have said in this place, we do not want to get the balance wrong to a point where we are providing powers to enforcement agencies—unprecedented powers in some cases—that will have a deleterious effect on our community. I do not want the very democratic, positive principles that we are all arguing for to be undermined by some of the legislation or some of the mechanisms that we are employing in order to fight terrorisms or other issues.

So, in that respect, I say through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, to Senator Brown that I have a problem with subclause (2)(a) in this amendment. But the other limitations are, I think, worth while. I do not think it is a surprise that the Australian Democrats would support the notion of recognition of international treaties or conventions. Obviously, not only would we seek to have a bill of rights or charter of freedoms in this nation, we would also seek—as we have attempted to previously and as I attempted to do in relation to the anti-terrorism legislation we dealt with in late November last year—to enshrine in legislation some reference to international treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is not intended necessarily to limit or constrain the law-making powers of this parliament. It is a minimum, with an expectation that we will at least be mindful of, refer to and be conscious of those particular treaties and conventions and our obligations under them.

In that respect, I do not think it is particularly problematic to do as this amendment seeks to do, which is to attempt to include the ICCPR, although I guess it goes a little further in that it cuts out any part of the act that opposes it. So we recognise the intention of the amendment and we are certainly supportive of provisions that give consideration to principles of international human rights law when interpreting domestic legislation. I think you will find, Madam Temporary Chairman, that increasingly there will be debates in this parliament and outside about having some kind of domestic form of protection of human rights and civil liberties in this nation—a bill of rights or a human rights act or whatever we may end up with. The momentum is going to build precisely because of the legislation that we are dealing with today and precisely because of its cumulative effect when viewed in conjunction with other bills that we have dealt with. But (2)(a) makes it a little too narrow for me, Senator Brown. Having said that, I think I have picked up the intent of the rest of the motion in my Democrat amendments. I hope that in the short time allowed the chamber will consider those amendments favourably.