Mr KERR (7:26 PM) —In the few minutes before the adjournment, I wish to speak briefly to the amendment proposed by the shadow attorney. The shadow attorney has spoken with a proper respect for the objectives of the government in making certain that law enforcement and our national security interests are not prejudiced by changes in the technologies available in the marketplace which, if not dealt with in some effective manner, would allow for those who wish to abuse the criminal law or interfere with our legitimate security interests to do so with greater impunity. But the shadow attorney has quite properly reflected the concern of many within the community and indeed many within the Labor Party that we should never be prepared to abandon a fundamental commitment to the principles of human rights. We must protect the interests of those who would potentially be subject to interception of their telephone systems in inappropriate circumstances.

To ensure that the interests of those who will be the subject of interception and third parties are properly protected, the shadow Attorney has proposed referring the questions that have been raised in the second reading amendment to an inquiry of this parliament. It is going to be an important inquiry. As the shadow Attorney mentioned, a number of other countries have adopted more stringent safeguards. These issues need to be examined. One concern has been the subject of some examination already. This is the question of the arrangements to secure the interests of third parties in circumstances where a warrant is sought not for a particular phone service but for what is called a `named person warrant'.

Named person warrants would authorise law enforcement agencies to seek interceptions, not with respect to particular telephone services; agencies would be able to follow around any person, anticipating where they may be wishing to use services, and to intercept those services to ensure that they are not defeated by means of use of different SIM cards and various other devices. But there are potential dangers because it means that no longer will the regime apply where a judge will be authorising up front, in advance and in knowledge of the circumstances of the persons against whom those intercepts will be placed. For example, a service which may be associated principally with another person but which is used by somebody the police have an interest in could be intercepted. I will continue my remarks tomorrow morning.

Debate interrupted.