Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Labor oppose the Democrats amendment. It may be, and perhaps it is unfortunate, that this matter has progressed a bit further since the Senate committee hearings, and we are in a better position to understand some of the nuances of the debate. Whilst acknowledging that CrimTrac does not have the investigative powers of traditional enforcement or security agencies, we note that CrimTrac does play a vital specialist role in assisting law enforcement. It is for this reason that we think it should remain within the bill’s definition of an enforcement agency.

I will not go through what CrimTrac is—I think most senators in this chamber have heard what CrimTrac does and does well—but, since November 2004, CrimTrac has been brokering Sensis direct access information on behalf of all policing jurisdictions and other criminal enforcement agencies to provide them with pertinent information about telephone subscriptions when investigating, preventing and prosecuting criminal offences. Access to this information is governed by various processes and procedures according to the law enforcement agency requesting the information.

Enforcement of criminal law covers a wide spectrum of activities and depends on the organisation to which the investigator belongs. CrimTrac currently brokers that on behalf of all policing jurisdictions across Australia, including the AFP. In addition, CrimTrac brokers telecommunications data on behalf of a number of other law enforcement agencies, which include the Australian Customs Service, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Crime and Misconduct Commission of Queensland, the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

The current application used by CrimTrac gives a simple forward, reverse and address based search on behalf of those law enforcement agencies. By undertaking these actions, CrimTrac ensures that all organisations are legitimately entitled to have access before approving individuals on a case-by-case basis. Access is granted to individuals, not organisations, work units or teams, according to their responsibility and rank. It goes without saying that that clearly supports, in Labor’s view, why CrimTrac remains central to this jurisdiction and why, given its direct role, it requires that access. Given the nature of what I have just said and the time available, I will not go into any further reasons which support that. If the Democrats want to dispute it further, I can provide more evidence to justify the position.