Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 30 November 2004
Page: 23


Senator GREIG (1:49 PM) —by leave—I move Democrat amendments (7) and (8):

(7) Clause 14, page 17 (after line 2), after subclause (5), insert:

(5A) An application must specify whether, during the 3 years prior to the date of the making of the application, any previous surveillance device warrant or emergency authorisation has been sought or issued under this Division in connection with the same alleged offence or offences, the same recovery order, or the same person or premises; and, if so, must further specify:

(a) the number of previous warrants and emergency authorisations; and

(b) the nature of each previous warrant and emergency authorisation, including the time period during which it was in force; and

(c) the manner in which the evidence or information obtained from each previous warrant and emergency authorisation was used.

(8) Clause 14, page 17 (after line 2), after subclause (5), insert:

(5B) An application must specify whether, during the 3 years prior to the date of the making of the application, there has been, in connection with the same alleged offence or offences, the same recovery order, or the same person or premises, any use of a surveillance device without a warrant under Part 4 and if so, must further specify:

(a) the nature of the previous surveillance, including the time period during which it was undertaken; and

(b) the manner in which the evidence or information obtained from the previous surveillance was used.

These amendments seek to ensure what we feel is greater accountability in the use of surveillance devices by law enforcement agencies and that a judge or AAT member to whom an application is made is apprised of all the relevant information before granting a warrant. Amendment (7) in particular requires that an application for a surveillance device warrant must specify whether any other warrants have been issued in relation to the same offence, person or premises during the previous three years. The application must also specify the number of previous warrants and emergency authorisations that have been granted during that period, the nature of each previous warrant and emergency authorisation, including the time period for which it was enforced, and the manner in which the evidence obtained was used.

Amendment (8) requires that an application for a warrant must specify whether any surveillance device has been used without a warrant in respect of the same offence, persons or premises within the previous three years. Again, the warrant must specify the nature of the previous surveillance and the way in which the information obtained was used. These are highly relevant matters to which a judge or AAT member granting a surveillance device warrant should turn their mind. We think this will help to ensure that the surveillance device powers under this act are used strictly and only for the purposes of law enforcement and not to monitor the activities of individuals over long periods of time with no proper justification.