Bills Digest No. 44 2003-04
Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation
Amendment Bill 2003
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Telecommunications
Interception and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003
Date Introduced:
18 September 2003
House:
House of Representatives
Portfolio:
Attorney-General
Commencement:
Schedule 1 commences on a date to be fixed by Proclamation,
but will be repealed if this does not occur within 12 months of Royal
Assent. Schedule 2 commences on Royal Assent.
To amend:
-
the
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to include slavery,
sexual servitude, deceptive recruiting and aggravated people smuggling
as offences in relation to which a telecommunications interception
warrant may be sought, and
-
the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, the Financial Transactions
Reports Act 1988 and the Crimes Act 1914 to provide the
proposed new Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission with
relevant law enforcement powers.
Background
The Telecommunications (Interception) Act prohibits interception
of 'a communication passing over a telecommunications system' except where
this is necessary for the operation or maintenance of such a system or
pursuant to an interception warrant.(1)
Interception warrants can be issued for national security
or law enforcement purposes.
Law enforcement warrants can be obtained by Federal and
State police and other government crime investigation bodies. Applications
for such warrants must be made to an 'eligible judge' or nominated member
of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.(2)
'Telecommunications service warrants' relate to a particular
identified telecommunications service.(3) 'Named person warrants’
apply to any telecommunication service that is used or likely to be used
by a named individual.(4)
An application for either type of interception warrant
can include a request that the warrant authorise entry on to specified
premises.
Interception warrants can only
be issued for the investigation of 'class 1' and 'class 2' offences. Class
1 offences include murder, acts of terrorism, kidnapping and narcotics
offences.(5) Class 2 offences include offences punishable by
imprisonment for life or a period of at least 7 years where the offender’s
conduct involves loss of life, serious personal injury, drug trafficking
or serious fraud, bribery or corruption etc.(6)
Before issuing either a 'class
1' or 'class 2' interception warrant, the judge or AAT member must consider
whether sufficient information could be obtained by alternative methods.
In the case of an interception warrant relating to a class 2 offence,
however, the judge or AAT member must also take into account the extent
to which the privacy of any person or persons would be interfered with,
as well as the gravity of the conduct constituting the offence being investigated.(7)
Additional information must
be supplied before a warrant can authorise entry on to premises.(8)
The following crime investigation
bodies can apply for and execute interception warrants for the purpose
of law enforcement:(9)
-
the Australian Federal Police,
-
the Australian Crime Commission, and
-
an ‘eligible authority’(10) of a State or the Northern
Territory which is declared to be an 'agency'
by the Attorney-General.(11) As at 30
June 2002, declarations were in force for the Victorian,
NSW, South Australian and Western Australian police services; the
New South Wales Crime Commission, Independent Commission Against Corruption
and Police Integrity Commission; and the Western Australian Anti-Corruption
Commission.(12)
Declarations by the Attorney-General are disallowable instruments under
the Telecommunications (Interception) Act.(13)
Other 'eligible authorities' that are not declared 'agencies' may have access
to intercepted information obtained by 'agencies' where this is relevant
to their investigations.
The Bill adds the offence of 'aggravated people smuggling'
to the list of 'class 2 offences' for which crime investigation agencies
can obtain an interception warrant in accordance with the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act.
The offences of 'people smuggling' and 'aggravated people
smuggling' were created by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (People
Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking And Other Measures) Act 2002, the
relevant parts of which came into force in January 2003.
The new offences apply to the smuggling of people into
a foreign country (whether or not via Australia),
whereas previous offences of this type in the Migration Act 1958
applied only to the smuggling of people into Australia.
An offence of 'people smuggling' is committed when a
person organises the illegal entry of another person into a foreign country
for a ‘benefit.’ The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment or 1,000
penalty units, or both.(14)
The 'aggravated offence of people smuggling' is committed
where a person commits an offence of people smuggling which:
-
involves an intention that the victim of the people smuggling operation
will be exploited after entry to the foreign country
-
subjects the victim to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or
-
results in a danger of death or serious harm to the victim.
The maximum penalty for this aggravated offence is 20
years imprisonment or a fine of 2,000 penalty units, or both.(15)
For full background on the new people smuggling offences,
see Bills
Digest No. 84 of 2002-03.(16)
The Bill also provides that offences under Division 270
of the Criminal Code Act 1995 are 'class 2 offences' for the purpose
of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery And Sexual Servitude)
Act 1999 (which came into force in September 1999) inserted Chapter
8 ('Offences against humanity') into the Criminal Code. Division 270 of
Chapter 8 added the offences of 'slavery', 'sexual servitude' and 'deceptive
recruiting for sexual services' to the Code.
The offence of 'slavery' occurs when a person intentionally
possesses a slave or engages in slave trading – irrespective of whether
the person engages in that conduct inside or outside Australia.
The maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment. ‘Slave trading’ is defined
to include capturing a person in order to make them a slave, purchasing
or selling slaves, commercial transactions involving slaves and directing
or financing such activities.(17)
‘Sexual servitude’ occurs when a person provides sexual
services and, because of force or threats, is not free to cease providing
those services or leave the place where they provide those services.
‘Threat’ includes a threat to cause a person’s deportation. A person who
intentionally or recklessly causes a person to enter or remain in sexual
servitude is guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty in the case of
an aggravated offence is 19 years imprisonment. In any other case the
maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment.(18)
The offence of 'deceptive recruiting for sexual services'
is committed if a person deceives another person that an engagement will
involve the provision of sexual services. The penalty is a maximum of
9 years imprisonment in the case of an aggravated offence and 7 years
imprisonment in any other case.(19)
An offence will be an aggravated offence if committed
against a person who is under 18 years of age.(20)
For full background on offences under Division 270 of
the Criminal Code, see Bills Digest
No. 167 of 1998-99.(21)
The latest annual report on the Telecommunications (Interception)
Act states that 2514 interception warrants were issued to law enforcement
agencies during 2001-02, representing an increase of 17 per cent over
the previous year.(22)
The annual report noted that there was a 48 per cent
increase in the number of prosecutions commenced and a 50 per cent increase
in the number of convictions obtained on the basis of lawfully obtained
information.(23)
Commenting on these figures, the Attorney-General, the
Hon. Daryl Williams MP, stated in June 2003 that:
The report shows that the use of telecommunications interception
continues to be an important investigative tool which is demonstrating
proven results. The figures contained in the report show that access
to this tool is vital for law enforcement particularly at a time of such
rapid technological change and advancement.(24)
In contrast, the Sunday Tasmanian remarked that:
Australians are fast becoming the most spied-on people in
the Western world. Mail interceptions and telephone taps have soared…The
2514 court warrants for phone taps last financial year – almost double
the number issued in the US – represent a tenfold increase in the past
decade…The warrants apply to hundreds of thousands of individual phone
calls and eavesdropping on thousands of people.(25)
In relation to the previous annual report on the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act, the then Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs,
Daryl Melham MP, stated in September 2002 that 'It is a striking fact
that Australian law enforcement agencies are resorting to telecommunications
interception much more than their American counterparts'. Given the disparity
in population between the two countries, 'this amounts to a per capita
rate of telephone interception in Australia
more than 20 times that in the United States.'(26)
For further background on telecommunications interception,
see Bills
Digest No. 121 of 2001-02.(27)
Western Australia's
Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003(28) will create a
new Corruption and Crime Commission ('CCC'). Formation of the
CCC was a key recommendation of the WA Royal Commission into Police Corruption
in its interim
report(29) presented in December 2002.
The CCC will be based on Queensland's
Crime and Misconduct Commission. It will replace the WA Anti-Corruption
Commission ('ACC'). The ACC was established in 1996 to investigate
public sector corruption in Western Australia
but was criticised for lacking the power to effectively tackle this issue.
According to its chairman, the ACC 'was set up to fail'.(30)
Commenting on the creation of the CCC, the West Australian
noted in February 2003 that:
The ill-conceived political stunt which became WA's Anti-Corruption
Commission is almost at an end. No one should mourn its passing. Instead,
there should be relief that at last WA is being promised an organisation
with real clout, able to root out corrupt police, public servants and
organised criminals.(31)
The CCC 'will, in effect, be a standing royal commission'.(32)
Indeed, it is intended that it have all of the functions of the Police
Royal Commission.(33) It will have power to gather information,
obtain documents and other evidence, summon witnesses, enter and search
public premises, conduct integrity tests, carry out covert operations,
use assumed identities and compel witnesses to give information. It will
be able to conduct open hearings if this is in the public interest.
Attempts to obstruct CCC hearings – such as interfering
with witnesses – will attract punishment of up to five years gaol and
a $100,000 fine.(34)
The Corruption and Crime Commission Act also creates
the position of Parliamentary Inspector, whose function will be to audit
the operations of the CCC and investigate and report allegations of misconduct
by the CCC or its officers.(35)
Schedule 1 of the current Bill before the Federal
Parliament will amend the following Commonwealth Acts:
-
the
Crimes Act 1914 to allow the CCC to authorise use of assumed
identities
-
the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to give the CCC
access to financial transaction reports from the Australian Transaction
Reports and Analysis Centre ('AUSTRAC'), and
- the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to enable the
CCC and the Parliamentary Inspector to receive intercepted information
relevant to their functions, and to allow the CCC to apply for and execute
interception warrants in its own right.
According to the Second Reading Speech for the Bill,
these amendments will provide the CCC with powers consistent with those
of the ACC.(36)
The West Australian reported in April 2003 that
after being given 'bugging powers' in September 2001, the ACC executed
45 telephone interception warrants in the second half of 2002, involving
the interception of 61,599 phone calls. (37)
The Federal Government expects that the CCC will be declared
an 'agency' under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act allowing it
to apply for and execute interception warrants. The Western Australian
Government must apply for 'agency' status on the CCC's behalf and satisfy
the Attorney-General that the CCC has appropriate accountability and record-keeping
arrangements in place.(38)
It is not anticipated that the Parliamentary Inspector
will be declared an interception agency in its own right. Instead it
will 'receive intercepted information in connection with its functions
in relation to misconduct.'(39)
Schedule 2 Item 1 amends the definition
of 'class 2 offence' in subsection 5D(3) of the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act to include offences against section 73.2 and
Division 270 of the Criminal Code.
This amendment will allow law enforcement bodies declared
as 'agencies' under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act to apply
for and execute interception warrants for investigating the new Commonwealth
offences of 'aggravated people smuggling', 'slavery', 'sexual servitude'
and 'deceptive recruiting for sexual services.'
Schedule 1 of the Bill amends various Commonwealth
Acts to confer relevant powers on the CCC and the Parliamentary Inspector.
Since the Western Australian Parliament is still considering
the final form of the CCC and its oversight by the Parliamentary Inspector,(40)
Item 2 of the table in clause 2 proposes that Schedule
1 should not commence until a day fixed by Proclamation. As the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill notes:
Commencement of the amendments in Schedule 1 by proclamation
will ensure that those provisions providing for the Commission and Parliamentary
Inspector do not commence until those entities are formally constituted.(41)
Item 2 of the table further provides that Schedule
1 will automatically be repealed if the CCC and the Parliamentary
Inspector are not formally created within 12 months after the Bill receives
Royal Assent.
Item 1 of Schedule 1 includes the CCC in the definition
of 'State or Territory participating agency' in subsection 15XA(1)
of the Crimes Act. This means that officers of the CCC will be
able – in accordance with section 15XH of the Crimes Act – to authorise
persons to use an assumed identity or to acquire evidence of an assumed
identity from any Commonwealth agency. Persons authorised to engage in
such activities will receive indemnity and protection from prosecution
under sections 15XD and 15XC of the Crimes Act.
Items 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 amend section 27
of the Financial Transaction Reports Act to enable the CCC and
its officers to receive 'FTR information'. 'FTR information' is the range
of information on financial transactions obtained by the Director of AUSTRAC
under Part II of the Financial Transaction Reports Act.
Schedule 1 amends the Telecommunications (Interception)
Act to enable the CCC and the Parliamentary Inspector to receive information
obtained from telecommunications interceptions.
Item 8 includes the CCC and the Parliamentary
Inspector within the definition of 'eligible authority' in subsection
5(1). This brings the two bodies within the scope of Part VII
of the Act covering use of information acquired from telecommunications
interceptions.
Item 13 amends the definition of 'permitted purpose'
– for which interception information can be used – in subsection 5(1)
of the Act to include investigations by the CCC and the Parliamentary
Inspector into 'misconduct'. This means the two bodies will be able to
use interception information not only to investigate serious criminal
offences but also to enquire into 'misconduct' (as defined in the Corruption
and Crime Commission Bill)(42) which may not constitute a serious
offence. In addition, under proposed paragraph 5(1)(g), the CCC
will also be permitted to use interception information to investigate
whether 'misconduct…is or may be about to occur, or is likely to occur'.
Item 16 amends section 5B to enable lawfully
obtained interception information to be used as evidence in proceedings
of the CCC and Parliamentary Commissioner.
Item 17 amends paragraph 6A(1)(c) by adding
the CCC and the Parliamentary Inspector to the list of agencies permitted
to use interception information for the investigation of criminal offences.
Item 20 amends section 68 to allow an agency
with interception information relating to matters that may give rise to
investigations by the CCC or the Parliamentary Inspector to pass such
information to those bodies.
Schedule 1 also amends the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act to enable the CCC to apply for and execute interception
warrants in its own right.
Item 19 amends paragraph 39(2) of the Act
to enable an officer of the CCC (once that body is declared an interception
'agency') to apply to an eligible judge or nominated member of the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal for an interception warrant.
Item 4 adds the Commissioner and senior executive
officer(s) of the CCC to the definition of 'certifying officer' in subsection
5(1) of the Act, enabling them to perform certain functions under
the Act including revoking interception warrants(43) and providing
evidentiary certificates as to actions taken in relation to warrants.(44)
The amendments proposed in the Bill
to the definition of 'class 2 offences' in the Telecommunications (Interception)
Act will allow interception warrants to be obtained for investigation
of new offences (aggravated people smuggling, slavery, sexual servitude
and deceptive recruiting for sexual services) recently included in the
Criminal Code.
However, by specifying offences against the Commonwealth
Criminal Code, the Bill may prevent interception
warrants being obtained for investigation of similar State and
Territory offences.
Sexual servitude and deceptive recruiting for sexual
services only contravene Commonwealth law where there is an overseas element
to the offence.(45) State and Territory legislation must be
used to prosecute offenders where all the conduct occurs within Australia.
Sexual servitude and related offences are covered
by legislation in South Australia,
ACT, NSW and the Northern Territory.(46)
The amendments proposed in the current Bill
would not permit State and Territory police forces or other agencies to
obtain an interception warrant to investigate such offences.
Under the proposed legislation the CCC can obtain
an interception warrant only for investigation of 'class 1' or 'class
2' offences, but will be able to use interception information from such
warrants (or forwarded by other agencies) for investigating lesser offences,
including 'misconduct'.
This allows broader use of interception information
than the ACC is permitted,(47) but is consistent with powers
given to other Australian crime investigation bodies.(48)
The Australian Federal Police, for example, can use interception information
for 'an investigation of, or an inquiry into, alleged misbehaviour, or
alleged improper conduct, of an officer of the Commonwealth'.(49)
State police forces are given a similar power.
However the CCC will also be permitted to use interception
information to investigate whether 'misconduct…is or may be about to
occur, or is likely to occur'. This suggests use of interception
information for a monitoring function that appears to go further than
the existing power of State and Federal police forces to use such information
in relation to alleged misbehaviour or improper conduct.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act section 7.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act sections 6D and 6DA.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act sections 9, 11A, 45, 46,
48.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act sections 9A, 11B, 45A,
46A.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act section
5.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act section
5D.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act sections 46 and 46A.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act section 48.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act Section
39. See the definition of ‘agency’ in section 5.
-
Section 5 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act currently
defines 'eligible authority' as the police forces of each of the States
and of the Northern Territory; the New South Wales Independent Commission
Against Corruption, Crime Commission, Police Integrity Commission
and Inspector of the Integrity Commission; the Western Australian
Anti-Corruption Commission and the Royal Commission into Police Corruption;
and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act sections
34 and 35. Section 35 sets out the prerequisites for a Ministerial
declaration.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act
1979 Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2002, p. 4.
-
Section 36.
-
Criminal Code Act 1995, section 73.1.
-
Criminal Code section 73.2.
-
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2002-03/03bd084.htm.
-
Criminal Code sections 270.1 – 270.3.
-
Criminal Code sections 270.4 – 270.6.
-
Criminal Code section 270.7.
-
Criminal Code section 270.8.
-
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1998-99/99bd167.htm.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for the year
ending 30 June 2002, p. 13.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for the
year ending 30 June 2002, p. 30.
-
Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP, Press
Release, 17 June 2003.
-
Sunday Tasmanian, 29 June 2003, p. 2.
-
Daryl Melham MP, News Release, 'More
Telephone Taps in Australia
than the United States',
15 September 2002.
-
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2001-02/02bd121.pdf.
-
Western Australia's
Corruption and Crime Commission Act was assented to in interim form
on 3 July 2003. Passage of the interim legislation was
necessary to ensure continued statutory coverage for staff of the
Royal Commission into Police Corruption. Both the interim Act and
an amending bill containing substantive provisions have been referred
to the WA Parliament's Standing Committee on Legislation for review. See WA Parliament's website
at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/bills.nsf/bills?
OpenView&Start=1& Count=120&Expand=1; and WA Legislative
Assembly Hansard, 26 June
2003, pp. 9454-56.
-
http://police.royalcommission.wa.gov.au/publications/publications.nsf/DocByAgency/
C02CE7AB831853FF48256CD80032D250/$file/Interim+Report.pdf
-
The West Australian, 27
February 2003, p. 18.
-
ibid.
-
ibid.
-
Corruption and Crime Commission Act, section 19.
-
Corruption and Crime Commission Act, Part 6.
-
Corruption and Crime Commission Act, Part 13.
-
Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP, Second
Reading Speech, House
Hansard, 18 September
2003, p. 19634.
-
The West Australian, 10
April 2003, p. 6.
-
Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP, Second
Reading Speech, House
Hansard, 18 September
2003, p. 19634.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4.
-
See note 26.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
-
Section 4 of the draft Corruption and Crime Commission Bill states
that:
'Misconduct occurs if —
(a)
a public officer corruptly acts or corruptly fails
to act in the performance of the functions of the public officer’s
office or employment;
(b)
a public officer corruptly takes advantage of the
public officer’s office or employment as a public officer to obtain
a benefit for himself or herself or for another person;
(c)
a public officer whilst acting or purporting to act
in his or her official capacity, commits an offence punishable by
2 or more years’ imprisonment;
(d) a public
officer engages in conduct that —
(i)
adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly
or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions
of a public body or public officer;
(ii) constitutes or involves the performance
of his or her functions in a manner that is not honest or impartial;
(iii) constitutes or involves a breach of the
trust placed in the public officer by reason of his or her office
or employment as a public officer; or
(iv) involves the misuse of information or
material that the public officer has acquired in connection with
his or her functions as a public officer, whether the misuse is
for the benefit of the public officer or another person, and constitutes
or could constitute —
(v) an offence against the Statutory Corporations
(Liability of Directors) Act 1996 or any other written law; or
(vi) a disciplinary offence providing reasonable
grounds for the termination of a person’s office or employment
as a public service officer under the Public Sector Management
Act 1994 (whether or not the public officer to whom the allegation
relates is a public service officer or is a person whose office
or employment could be terminated on the grounds of such conduct);
or
(e) a public officer, whilst acting or purporting
to act in his or her official capacity, engages in reviewable police
action.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act section
57.
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act section
61.
-
Criminal Code section 270.5.
-
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) sections 66 and 67;
Crimes Act (NSW) Part 3 Division 10A; Crimes Act 1900
(ACT) Part 5; Criminal Code of the Northern Territory of Australia
(NT) Schedule 1, Division 6A. In addition, the WA Criminal Code Amendment
Bill 2003 will amend the WA Criminal Code to create sexual servitude
offences.
-
The ACC is limited to using interception information for investigating
'alleged corrupt conduct, criminal conduct, criminal involvement or
serious improper conduct'. Telecommunications (Interception) Act section
5(1)
-
Telecommunications (Interception) Act section 5 (1).
-
ibid.
Peter Prince
3 October 2003
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and
Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure
that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information
publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are
those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and
Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues
contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and
for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal
opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary
or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents
with Senators and Members and their staff but not with members of the
public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2003
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act
1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval
systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library,
other than by Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their
official duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 2003.

|