Senator BROWN(11.37 a.m.) —I hope the government will support this as well because, for the reasons outlined, it is a very good procedure. It is something of a leap into the dark to be going beyond judges for the issuing of warrants to allow the authorities to be able to place a phone tap, a listening device, on the phone lines of citizens. What concerns me again is that the bulk of work in issuing those warrants will be going from the federal judges, where it has always been, to non-judges in the Administra tive Appeals Tribunal. We have heard from Senator Ellison for the government that one of those persons in the AAT is not legally qualified. He is not a legal practitioner.

Senator Ellison interjecting—

Senator BROWN —`Only one,' says Senator Ellison. Already we have gone from insisting that there be a federal judge arbitrating on whether a warrant—remember these warrants are sought in secret—is granted to phone tap Australian phone lines. Now suddenly we are finding that persons issuing warrants will not even have to be legally trained. I find that most alarming.

I fortunately do not know who the specific members of the AAT are that we are referring to, so I feel free to comment on the principle. It is a very serious matter indeed that the chamber is considering a government request—I think Senator Murray will agree that this has Democrat endorsement—that officers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, at least one of whom we know is not legally qualified, are suddenly being asked to approve secret listening devices being placed on the phones of citizens without their knowledge because there will be legitimate circumstances for doing that in the pursuit of criminals.

Suddenly we go from having an insistence on federal judges to having people without legal qualifications being given that role. I object to that. It is not a light matter; it is a very serious matter. Moreover, the number of requests going to these officers is going to be greater than that which have been going to the judges, simply because there are far fewer of them.

When this legislation goes through, the judges are going to say, `We now have the out. We are not going to deal with these requests for a warrant to allow phone tapping.' So, suddenly, we are going to have non-judges, including one person without any legal qualifications although no doubt well qualified in other ways. Senator Ellison listed those qualifications: you can be qualified in economics, that will do; you can be qualified in some other matter, that will do; you need to have spent five years somewhere on a board or on a committee, that will do—in other words, almost anything will do.

We have to be very alarmed about the direction in which this is heading. I feel very concerned about the prospect of these changes getting through the Senate. I feel that even the sunset clause is not going to be enough, but it is the best we can do. That is why the Greens are moving it. I am pleased to hear that the Labor Party and the Democrats are going to support it. It is a vital amendment because a review by this Senate is essential if the government and Democrat majority is to have sway in allowing AAT officers, including nonlegally qualified persons, to be responsible for issuing in secret taps on citizens' phones.

Senator Murray —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to a deliberate misrepresentation by Senator Brown of the Tasmanian Greens. The Australian Democrats have not signalled their support for this bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan) —That is not a point of order, Senator Murray.

Senator BROWN —I stand on what I have said. The test will come with the vote. But I, for one, am not going to vote in support of legislation that allows this major change in the protection of civil liberties that Australians should expect from their parliament to go through without far better reason than the government has brought forward.