Phone tapping into crime

Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine has been reported as saying that under the proposed new laws, phone taps will be dealt with by a court, with the Public Interest Monitor attending hearings to ensure individual rights are protected.

“Queensland legislation will require that law enforcement agencies must consult with the PIM about public interest considerations before applying for a (phone tap) warrant,” Mr Shine said.

Premier Peter Beattie weighed in, saying “We have repeatedly asked the Howard Government to amend the current federal Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act, to allow the Public Interest Monitor to provide (a safeguard for people’s privacy), but the Federal Attorney-General has refused to make the change.”

Unfortunately, nobody seems to have shared that information with the Federal Attorney-General, who, along with the public, believes the Public Interest Monitor’s role will be that of the person granting or refusing phone tap warrants. His public remarks drew a sharp retort from Premier Beattie, but smoke still obscures the issue, and the public remains pretty much in the dark as to what the phone intercept laws will let the CMC and police do.

The normally media-savvy Beattie Government has fumbled the ball on the phone tap issue. The State’s usually well-oiled publicity machine has all but ignored the subject, which has only added to the public’s confusion and unease.

Queenslanders know very little about the state’s Public Interest Monitor. I doubt whether many people could even name this person, who could soon have sweeping powers to allow a secret intrusion into our lives.

In 2005 Police Minister Judy Spence said the Public Interest Monitor was created under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, to ensure Queensland had one of the most accountable and transparent police services in Australia.

The Public Interest Monitor, who is appointed for a three-year term, has a function to ensure the rights of the public are upheld when police apply for surveillance-type warrants. She said the PIM is already used for listening devices and surveillance warrant requests, and the State wants to extend this to phone tap warrant applications.

Obviously these applications are considered behind closed doors, with the state’s PR spin doctors saying phone tap powers are needed in the war on high-level and organised crime. The Police Minister regards “the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs” as one of the targets of the new powers.

In my view, warrants for phone taps need to be considered by a Supreme Court justice at a minimum. There also needs to be some urgent clarification as to exactly what forms of telecommunications will be covered in these laws.

When the phone tap idea was floated last year it was planned to give the CMC and police the powers to “intercept communications”.

It suggests powers to intercept mail, mobile phone calls and SMS messages on your mobile, and your emails, all of which could be deemed to be “telecommunications”. Is that what is intended? At the very least we need urgent clarification.