Queensland Bill

Queensland Parliamentary Library
Telephone Tapping Powers

for Queensland Law
Enforcement Agencies: the
Telecommunications
(Interception) Queensland Bill
2003 (Qld)
The Telecommunications (Interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld)
was introduced into the Queensland Parliament as a Private Members
Bill by Mr L Springborg MP, Leader of the Opposition, on 9 October
2003. The objective of the Bill is to establish a recording, reporting
and inspection regime to complement the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act 1979 (Cth). It will give the Queensland Police
Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission power to intercept
communications between offenders over telecommunications systems
as a tool for the investigation of particular serious offences, such as
drug trafficking, prescribed under the Commonwealth Act.
Nicolee Dixon
Research Brief No 2003/35

Research Publications and Resources Section
Ms Karen Sampford, Director
(07) 3406 7116
Ms Nicolee Dixon, Senior Parliamentary Research Officer
(07) 3406 7409
Ms Renee Giskes, Parliamentary Research Officer
(07) 3406 7241
Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2003

ISSN 1443-7902
ISBN 0 7345 2882 5
NOVEMBER 2003
Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act
1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members of the
Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the prior written
permission of the Clerk of the Parliament on behalf of the Parliament of Queensland.
Inquiries should be addressed to:
Director, Research Publications & Resources
Parliament House
George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
Ms Karen Sampford. (Tel: 07 3406 7116)
Email: Karen.Sampford@parliament.qld.gov.au
Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications/publications.htm
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
CURRENT POSITION IN QUEENSLAND ..................................................2
POWER TO INTERCEPT TELECOMMUNICATIONS: THE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) ACT 1979 (CTH) .........4
3.1
ELIGIBLE STATE AGENCIES ...........................................................................5
3.2
APPLICATION FOR WARRANT ........................................................................7
3.3
RELEVANT OFFENCES UPON WHICH APPLICATION FOR WARRANT MADE ....8
3.4
ISSUE OF WARRANTS .....................................................................................9
3.5
DEALING WITH INTERCEPTED INFORMATION ...............................................10
3.6
REPORTS ABOUT INTERCEPTIONS ................................................................11
3.7
ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS ....................................................................12
3.8
CIVIL REMEDIES ..........................................................................................13
3.9
AGENCY COMMENTS IN 2002 ANNUAL REPORT ..........................................13
POSSIBLE BENEFITS AND CONCERNS..................................................13
HISTORY OF QUEENSLAND DEVELOPMENTS...................................15
5.1
CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION

REPORT 1995 ...........................................................................................15
5.2
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) QUEENSLAND BILL 1998 ............17
5.1
PROJECT KRYSTAL A STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF ORGANISED CRIME IN

QUEENSLAND .............................................................................................17
5.2
PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE REPORT.........................18
5.3
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS .............................................................................20
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) QUEENSLAND BILL

2003 (QLD) ......................................................................................................20
RECENT QPL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2003 ........................................25
Telecommunications (interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld)
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The Telecommunications (Interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld) was

introduced into the Queensland Parliament as a Private Members Bill by Mr L
Springborg MP, Leader of the Opposition, on 9 October 2003. The objective of the
Bill is to establish a recording, reporting and inspection regime to complement the
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth) to give the Queensland Police
Service (QPS) and the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) power to
intercept communications between offenders over telecommunications systems as a
tool for the investigation of particular serious offences, such as drug trafficking,
prescribed under the Commonwealth Act.1
The Bill seeks to bring Queensland into line with other States, all of which have
passed legislation to give their law enforcement agencies interception powers.
Under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act, only eligible State authorities
(being the QPS and the CMC in the case of Queensland) that have been declared to
be agencies for the purposes of that Act can apply for an interception warrant. In
order for the Commonwealth Attorney-General to make that declaration, the
relevant State must have legislation complying with the reporting, record keeping,
destruction, and inspection preconditions set out in the Telecommunications
(Interception) Act. The Bill provides measures to satisfy those requirements.
At present, Queensland law enforcement bodies must rely on the Australian
Federal Police (AFP) or the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) for access to
intercepted communications that those bodies have intercepted under the
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. This will usually occur only where
the Queensland agencies are involved in joint operations with a body having
interception power (such as the ACC or AFP) or the offence is within the
jurisdiction of those bodies. Many offences and criminal activities, however, are
State-based and fall outside the jurisdiction of the ACC or AFP. State-based
bribery and corruption have been a matter of frustration for Queensland law
enforcement agencies.2
Mr L Springborg MP, Leader of the Opposition, Telecommunications (Interception)

Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld), Second Reading Speech, Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 9
October 2003, p 3886.
Queensland. Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, A Report on the

Introduction of the Telecommunications Interception Power in Queensland balancing
investigative powers with safeguards, Report No 50, December 1999, p 8, referring to evidence
by Mr B Butler, then Chair of the CJC, given at the PCJC hearing.
Page 2
The Bill reflects recommendations made in June 1999 by the QPS and the
Queensland Crime Commission in the Public Information Paper, Project KRYSTAL
A Strategic Assessment of Organised Crime in Queensland.3
CURRENT POSITION IN QUEENSLAND
It has been noted that the telephone plays an important part in the communication
of information. Criminals too use the telephone to plan crimes. While criminals
are alert to the possible presence of listening devices and have means of finding or
combating them, law enforcement bodies have found that even when people
believe that their telephone conversations are being intercepted, they will still use
the telephone. In any event, other parties unaware of the interception will still
make calls to those persons.4 It is likely that even with the increasing range of new
technologies, the telephone will still remain an important means of communication.
Unlike most law enforcement powers, which are within the province of State
legislative capacity, interception of telecommunications has become dominated by
the Commonwealth.
The Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979
(Commonwealth Act) represents the exercise of the constitutional power conferred
on the Commonwealth Parliament by s 51(v) of the Commonwealth Constitution to
make laws with respect to postal, telegraphic, telephonic and other like services.
The Commonwealth Act prohibits, except where authorised, interception of
communications passing over a telecommunications system without the knowledge
of the person making the communication. A number of safeguards and controls
apply. At least as far as the telephone system is concerned, the High Court has
held that the Commonwealth Act was intended to express completely the law
governing the interception of communications passing over that system, thus
preventing State legislation from covering the same field.5 For State police or a
law enforcement agency to intercept telecommunications, the Commonwealth Act
requires that the relevant State has complementary legislation that complies with
requirements in the Commonwealth Act. Queensland is the only State not to have
such legislation.
Telecommunications (Interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld), Explanatory Notes, p 2.
Criminal Justice Commission (CJC), Telecommunications Interception and Criminal

Investigations in Queensland: A Report, January 1995, p 30, citing supporting material from
previous inquiries and reviews eg Stewart Report of the Royal Commission into Alleged
Telephone Interceptions, (Commissioner Stewart), 1986, pp 341-342.
Miller v Miller (1978)141 CLR 269. Section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution
invalidates State laws to the extent of inconsistency with a Commonwealth law.
Page 3
Given the supremacy of the Commonwealth in the telecommunications interception

area, States have tended to concentrate their legislative efforts on regulating the use
of surveillance devices, such as listening devices, to monitor activities not passing
over telecommunications systems. Under the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), a
listening device is defined as any instrument, apparatus, equipment or device
capable of being used to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private
conversation simultaneously with its taking place. It is an offence to use a
listening device to do those things unless exceptions apply: s 43. One exception is
that it will not be an offence for a police officer or another person to use a listening
device under a provision of an Act authorising the use of a listening device.
The Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPR Act) allows a police
officer to use a surveillance device (including either, or a combination of, a
listening device, visual surveillance device (eg a camera); and a tracking device) to
investigate indictable offences under the authority of a warrant issued by the
Supreme Court. This legislation also created the Public Interest Monitor who
appears in applications for warrants as the representative of the public interest; the
legislation enables the Public Interest Monitor to access agency records about the
warrant.6
Similar powers are available under the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 to enable
authorised crime commission officers of the CMC to investigate misconduct
(listening device) or major crime (same range of devices as under the PPR Act but
also includes a data surveillance device for computers7). Under both this Act and
the PPR Act, the issue of warrants by the Court is constrained by considerations
relating to the intrusive nature of such devices and the viability of alternative
methods of investigation. There are safeguards built in such as the involvement of
the Public Interest Monitor and, for the CMC, general oversight by the
Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC).8
Telecommunications interception is directed at communications over a
telecommunications system and, for reasons explained later, may be a more
effective investigative tool than a device such as a listening device. The
interception can occur at a remote location. It can pick up both sides of a telephone
conversation, or facsimile communications, or emails using a computer modem, all
PCJC Report No 50, p 4.
A difficulty with Internet and email communications is that they operate through telephone
lines and therefore are within the domain of the Commonwealth Act. Any surveillance
permitted under State laws may have to occur at a point before or after passing over the
telecommunications system (eg on the hard drive of the sender or receiver). However, there is
no case on point.
See also Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950, s 19C.
Page 4
in real time. The limitations of listening devices are that they usually need to be
physically installed and removed at a particular place, possibly on a number of
occasions, thereby making them an intrusive tool and possibly endangering the
officer concerned. They can also only pick up one end of a telephone conversation.
POWER TO INTERCEPT TELECOMMUNICATIONS: THE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) ACT 1979 (CTH)
The long title of the Commonwealth Act is an Act to prohibit the interception of
telecommunications except in accordance with its provisions. The Act sets out the
circumstances in which interception of communications will be lawful.9
Telecommunications is defined in s 5 of the Commonwealth Act to mean
communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy or both.
A telecommunications service is a service for carrying such communications,
the use of which enables communications to be carried over a telecommunications
system operated by a carrier but is not a service for carrying communications
solely by means of radiocommunication. It will therefore include mobile
telephones, facsimile transmissions, modem transmissions and email. So while
telecommunications interception conjures up the idea of telephone tapping, it is
broader than this.
Pursuant to s 7, a person shall not intercept etc. a communication passing over a
telecommunications system. However, this does not apply in relation to a number
of situations then set out in sub-s 7(2)-(5) which will allow telecommunications
interception to take place.
Previous legislation (the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960)
allowed only very limited interception of telephone communications by the then
Post-Master for technical reasons and by the Australian Security Intelligence
Organisation (ASIO) under a warrant for national security reasons. For the first
time, the 1979 Act extended the power to the AFP to investigate narcotic offences
under the Customs Act 1901.
The Commonwealth Act now allows telecommunications interception to occur
where the interception results from, or is incidental to, action taken by an

officer of ASIO for specified purposes. Part III of the Commonwealth Act
concerns applications by ASIO for a warrant to intercept communications that
could assist in carrying out national security intelligence functions. This Brief
will not focus on interception by ASIO;
See Commonwealth Attorney-General, Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for

the Year Ending 30 June 2002, p 2.
Page 5
by an AFP officer or State police officer in certain situations of urgency

involving potential loss of life or serious personal injury. A warrant must be
applied for as soon as practicable;
where the interception of a communication occurs under a warrant. Part VI

enables the AFP, ACC, and eligible State law enforcement agencies to apply
for a warrant to investigate certain prescribed serious offences. This is the
focus of the discussion in this Brief.
3.1 ELIGIBLE STATE AGENCIES

In 1987, the Commonwealth Act was amended to enable the National Crime
Authority (now superseded by the ACC) and State law enforcement agencies to
intercept telephone communications in certain circumstances and to extend the
range of offences for which warrants could be obtained. This move followed
recommendations of the 1981 Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry Into Drugs,
headed by the Hon Mr Justice E S Williams, and the 1983 Royal Commission into
Drug Trafficking, headed by the Hon Mr Justice D G Stewart.10
Part VI of the Commonwealth Act enables applications for warrants to be made by
the AFP, the ACC, and State law enforcement agencies that are eligible
authorities. In the Queensland context, the QPS and the CMC are each an
eligible authority. However, just being an eligible authority is not enough to
enable either the QPS or CMC to apply for a warrant. The Commonwealth
Attorney-General must have first declared the eligible authority to be an agency
and may do so only if the preconditions under the Commonwealth Act are met.
These are
the Premier of a State must request the Attorney-General to make the

declaration; and
the State Government must have passed complementary legislation complying

with the requirements in s 35 of the Commonwealth Act regarding record
keeping, destruction, reporting, and oversight and inspection. It is this
precondition that the Queensland Telecommunications (Interception)
Queensland Bill 2003 seeks to satisfy. The way in which the Bill seeks to
comply with s 35 is dealt with in the context of the discussion of the Bill,
below.
10
See also the 1986 Stewart Royal Commission Into Alleged Telephone Interceptions Report.
Page 6
A declaration must not be made unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the
State has entered into an agreement to pay all the expenses connected with the
issue of warrants and meet the AFPs expenses concerning their execution.
The State Premier can also ask the Attorney-General to revoke a declaration. In
addition, the declaration can be revoked if, and only if, the Attorney-General is
satisfied of any of the matters in s 37(2). These are things such as the State law no
longer being satisfactory; compliance of the agency no longer being satisfactory; or
there are difficulties concerning the agreement about expenses relating to the issue
and execution of warrants.
At present, no Queensland body has been declared to be an agency under the
Commonwealth Act. New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria have had
legislation to allow telecommunications interception for many years with Western
Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory recently joining in. The
declarations are set out below 11
Victoria Police
28 October 1988
NSW Crime Commission
30 January 1989
NSW Police Service
30 January 1989
Independent
Corruption
Commission
Against 6 June 1990
South Australia Police
10 July 1991
Western Australia Police Service
15 July 1997
Police Integrity Commission (NSW)
14 July 1998
Western Australian
Commission
Anti-Corruption 24 September 2001
Eligible authorities not the subject of a declaration must rely on being given access
to intercepted information which has been obtained by other agencies with power
to obtain a warrant. In Queensland, it is sometimes possible, if a law enforcement
agency believes that interception is needed for proper investigation of a serious
offence, to seek assistance from other law enforcement bodies such as the AFP or
ACC. For example, information might be intercepted under a warrant obtained by
a Commonwealth agency that indicates the commission of a Queensland offence
but the QPS has not been declared an agency for the purposes of the
11
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2002, p 4.
Page 7
Commonwealth Act. In this situation, it may be that the Commonwealth agency

can communicate the information to the QPS in accordance with Part VII
(discussed below). There are also occasions where Queensland agencies are
involved in a joint operation with a Commonwealth law enforcement agency and
thereby have access to intercepted communications.
However, while it could be argued that Queensland law enforcement agencies
could rely on Commonwealth or other declared State agencies to help in or take
over the investigation and obtain a warrant under the Commonwealth Act, this may
not always provide the appropriate solution. There may not be the resources
available to the agency called upon or it may not have jurisdiction (eg purely intrastate crimes) to help and, in any event, this approach would make the Queensland
bodies too dependent on the Commonwealth agencies.12 The jurisdiction issue has
troubled some, given that State-based crime will fall outside the jurisdiction of the
ACC and AFP.
In evidence during the Parliamentary Criminal Justice
Committees public hearings in 1999, the then Queensland Crime Commissioner
expressed concerns about paedophilia, a State-based crime, that is perfectly suited
to interception. Investigators may be able to have access to intercepted
communications, such as an email from the paedophile to a potential victim setting
up a rendezvous. Another area falling outside the Commonwealth agencies
jurisdiction is State-based corruption and bribery offences.13
3.2 APPLICATION FOR WARRANT

A State eligible authority in whose favour the declaration has been made can apply
for an interception warrant. Applications are ex parte, for obvious reasons. The
application must be made to an eligible judge14 or an Administrative Appeals
Tribunal (AAT) member nominated by the Attorney-General (see s 6DA)15 and
accompanied by an affidavit complying with the requirements of s 42. In cases of
urgency, a telephone application may be made: s 50. However, the person who
made the telephone application must, within 1 day, give affidavit evidence and the
authorisation to the Judge or AAT member (s 51) or the telephone warrant can be
revoked (s 52).
12
CJC, Telecommunications Interception and Criminal Investigation in Queensland, pp 35-36.
13
PCJC Report No 50, p 8, and citing hearing transcript pp 4, 25.
14
The Attorney-General may declare a Judge to be an eligible judge for the purposes of the Act.
15
Section 6DA was inserted due to the High Court decision in Grollo v Commissioner of the AFP
and Ors (1995) 131 ALR 225 indicating incompatibility between judges engaging in
administrative functions and normal judicial functions under the Commonwealth Constitution.
Page 8
3.3 RELEVANT OFFENCES UPON WHICH APPLICATION FOR WARRANT

MADE
Different types of warrants may be applied for in relation to a class 1 offence or a
class 2 offence a telecommunications service warrant where it is suspected
that a particular telecommunications service will be used by a particular person,16
or a named person warrant where it is suspected that a particular person may use
more than one telecommunications service in relation to the offence.
A class 1 offence is defined to cover very serious offences (such as murder,
kidnapping, narcotics offences, acts of terrorism) as well as ancillary offences in
relation to class 1 offences (eg aiding, abetting, and conspiring).
A class 2 offence is defined in s 5D to cover
particular serious offences punishable by life imprisonment or a minimum of 7

years in prison (such as those involving loss of life, serious injury, damage
endangering safety, serious arson, drug trafficking, serious fraud, serious loss
of revenue to the Government, bribery or corruption, child pornography);
offences punishable by life imprisonment or a minimum of 7 years in prison

that involve a number of offenders in planning and organising sophisticated
methods and techniques and involves offences such as (but not limited to) theft,
tax evasion, extortion, bribery or corruption, bankruptcy violations, sexual
offences involving minors, immigration offences;
money laundering offences;
certain computer related offences under the Criminal Code;
offences ancillary to the above.
The Telecommunications Interception and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003

(Cth), which recently passed both Houses of Parliament, will add slavery, sexual
servitude, deceptive recruiting, and aggravated people smuggling to the list of
class 2 offences in relation to which a warrant may be sought.
Before issuing a class 1 interception warrant, the judge or AAT member must be
satisfied of a number of things (see ss 45, 45A). Satisfaction must also be reached
that the intercepted information would be likely to assist in connection with the
agencys investigation of the class 1 offence(s) having regard to the extent to which
alternative investigative methods may be effectively used without prejudicing the
investigation.
16
These warrants can be accompanied by a warrant for entry onto specified premises: s 48.
Page 9
Before a class 2 interception warrant can be issued, the Judge or AAT member
must be satisfied of matters in ss 46 and 46A, which are similar to those for class 1
warrants. However, for the class 2 warrants, regard must be had to a number of
privacy related matters ie how much the privacy of people would be likely to be
interfered with against the gravity of the conduct constituting the offence(s) under
investigation and how much the information would be likely to assist the
investigation.
It appears that, during 2001-2002, the main types of serious offences specified in
Part VI warrants were, for all Commonwealth and State agencies, drug trafficking
(825) and narcotics offences (589) (both making up the bulk of offences), and
murder (514).17
Note that a warrant to allow entry onto premises can be granted in certain
circumstances (eg to install or retrieve the equipment): s 48. Very few have been
issued, probably because there is little need for entry onto premises given the
technical nature of telecommunications interception. Only 1 warrant was granted
during 2001-2002.18
3.4 ISSUE OF WARRANTS

A warrant can be issued for up to 90 days (the 2001-2002 average for all agencies
being around 48 days)19 but a further warrant may be issued. Only authorised
officers of the agency or another agency can exercise authority conferred by the
warrant: s 55. Warrants may be made subject to specific conditions and
restrictions: s 49.
During 2001-2002, 2514 warrants were issued under Part VI of the Commonwealth
Act, representing an increase of around 17% on the total number for the previous
reporting year. A number of reasons were cited for this including that there has
been a general increase in the use of telecommunications services, particularly
mobile services, by criminals, and widespread recognition of the usefulness of
interception as an investigative tool.20
17
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2002,
pp 19ff.
18
19
20
Page 10
The Telecommunications Interception Division of the AFP (specifically established

under the Commonwealth Act) takes action necessary to enable warrants, other
than warrants issued to the AFP, to be executed. It has a supervisory function. The
actual interception is undertaken in secure facilities separate to where the
investigators are located and only a communication that is relevant to the
investigation is passed on.
It was reported that total expenditure incurred by agencies in connection with the
execution of warrants increased by around 16% during 2001-2002 to $19,969,419,
possibly due to the rise in the number of warrants issued. However, it appears that
the average expenditure incurred by agencies per warrant has decreased or
remained static over the past two reporting periods. The NSW Police had a total
expenditure of around $2,623,463 and the Victorian Police a total of $2,968,538.
Expenditure for the NSW Crime Commission was $3,933,524.21
If, during the warrant period, the agency is satisfied that the grounds for issuing the
warrant no longer exist, the chief officer must revoke the warrant and the AFP
Commissioner must be immediately informed as well as any chief officers of other
agencies exercising authority under the warrant. A warrant can also be revoked by
the agency at any time if the same bodies are informed: ss 56 and 57. In addition,
the carrier operating the telecommunications service over which the relevant
communications are passing must be notified of issues and revocations of warrants:
s 60.
3.5 DEALING WITH INTERCEPTED INFORMATION

Part VII of the Commonwealth Act sets out a number of safeguards and restrictions
on the way in which intercepted information can be used. These, set out in broad
terms, include
no communication of, or using, the intercepted information or information

about the warrant (eg who applied, that such warrant exists, the
telecommunications service to which it applies), including in evidence in
proceedings, except for a purpose under the Act. A breach is an offence;
employees of a carrier can use the information or warrant information in

connection with operating or maintenance type functions;
employees of a carrier may communicate to an officer of the agency the

intercepted information and warrant information for purposes connected with
the agencys investigation of a serious offence but for no other purpose;
21
Page 11
a person intercepting the communication may communicate it to the relevant

officer;
a chief officer of the agency intercepting the information may, if the

information points to the commission of an offence relevant to another agency,
communicate information to that other agency. It would be this provision that
Queensland law enforcement agencies have to rely upon to obtain information;
intercepted information is able to be given in evidence in exempt proceedings

(including those regarding prescribed offences under the Act, police discipline,
official misconduct etc; see s 5B);
provision is made for the destruction of records no longer needed.
3.6 REPORTS ABOUT INTERCEPTIONS22

Part IX of the Commonwealth Act sets out requirements about the contents of
annual reports that must be given to the Attorney-General regarding applications
and warrants under the Act. Section 96 states that the reports provided by State
agencies must include a statement of total expenditure connected with the
interceptions. Carriers also have reporting obligations under the Act.
The Attorney-General must table an Annual Report containing information set out
in ss 100 and 101 regarding statistics on applications made, warrants issued etc as
well as about the warrant periods. In addition, it must contain information about
how effective the warrants have been in terms of the number of arrests made on the
basis of the intercepted information; the types and numbers of offences prosecuted.
A range of other information must also be included (see s 103).
The Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for the Year Ending 30
June 2002 reports that the number of arrests made during the reporting year on the
basis of lawfully intercepted information by all agencies was 1479, an increase of
43% on the previous year (representing 59 arrests for every 100 warrants issued).
Agencies have indicated that this increase may be due to the fact that many of the
warrants were obtained for drug related offences which may lead to multiple arrests
for one offence, a situation less common for other crimes.23 In addition, it was
revealed that 935 convictions were based on intercepted information being given in
22
A number of reporting obligations are imposed on the ACC and the AFP but the focus is on
State agencies in this Brief.
23
Page 12
evidence.24 In some cases, the weight of the evidence so obtained may cause more
guilty pleas to be entered so that the intercepted information does not end up being
admitted into evidence. An offender hearing themselves in a taped telephone
conversation may be more likely to plead guilty.
In terms of evidentiary value of intercepted information, it has been suggested that
recordings of the communications were likely to be less open to allegations of
tampering, editing, and selective recording.25
However, there has been some argument that caution is needed in interpreting
effectiveness of interception on the basis of such data because it is impossible to
show that juries convict offenders on the basis of the intercepted material as
opposed to other evidence before them.26
3.7 ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS

The most significant of the provisions intended to ensure the accountability of
agencies intercepting information under a warrant include
a General Register containing particulars of Part VI warrants is kept by the

AFP Commissioner. It must be delivered to the Attorney-General every quarter
and can be inspected by the Ombudsman to check the extent of compliance;
the AFP Commissioner must also maintain a Special Register about details of
warrants that do not lead to a prosecution;
the Attorney-General must be provided with a copy of a warrant and

instruments revoking it as soon as practicable and, when the warrant expires, a
written report about the use of the information obtained under it;
agencies have to give the Attorney-General information about interception

costs during the reporting year to enable the Attorney-General to provide an
Annual Report to Parliament;
independent oversight of Commonwealth agencies use of interception powers

is given to the Commonwealth Ombudsman who must inspect records to
24
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2002,
pp 30ff. Note, however, that the statistics do not necessarily reflect a correlation between
warrants issued in a reporting year and convictions obtained in that same year.
25
CJC, Telecommunications Interception and Criminal Investigation in Queensland, pp 32-33.
26
Bronitt, S, Electronic Surveillance, Human rights and Criminal Justice, (1997) 3(2)
Australian Journal of Human Rights, at http://www.austli.edu.au
Page 13
determine compliance and report to the Attorney-General. At the State level,

the same supervisory role is performed by equivalent State bodies.
3.8 CIVIL REMEDIES

A range of civil remedies are available under Part XA to a person who was party to
a communication which is unlawfully intercepted. This will also apply if lawfully
intercepted information is unlawfully communicated to some other person. The
orders are within the courts discretion but may include declaring the interception
or communication to be unlawful; ordering the person at fault to pay the aggrieved
party appropriate damages; injunctive relief; or ordering the person at fault to pay
an amount representing the total gross income derived by that person as a result.
3.9 AGENCY COMMENTS IN 2002 ANNUAL REPORT

In the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for the Year Ending 30
June 2002, it is recorded that agencies consider that telecommunications
interception has proved to be an extremely valuable investigative tool and is likely
to remain the case in the future, despite growing technical sophistication (eg
encryption). The agencies indicate two main reasons for this. The first is that
evidence gathered can lead to the successful conclusion of an investigation where
alternative evidence is uncorroborated, unavailable or insubstantial. Second,
agencies are able to collect a large amount of useful evidence in a way that is
generally less resource intensive than other forms of investigation.27 This reflects
findings of the Barrett Review in 1994.28
POSSIBLE BENEFITS AND CONCERNS
The advantages of and concerns with telecommunications interception over other

forms of surveillance techniques have been canvassed in a number of reviews and
reports. Obviously, the points listed for either category are contentious. For
example, the 2nd Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee (PCJC) disagreed with
the then Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) regarding whether interception was
more or less intrusive than other surveillance methods.29
27
28
Barrett, P J, Review into the Long Term Effectiveness of Telecommunications Interception,

1994.
29
The 1995 Reports published by these bodies will be discussed below.
Page 14
The benefits of interception have been noted to include the following30
less possibility of being detected as not necessary to enter premises to install;
less risk to personal safety of investigators through less need to physically enter
places;
less intrusive on privacy than, for example, a listening device;
can direct more accurately other traditional forms of investigation;
high quality evidential value of the information intercepted and better chance of
obtaining convictions;
more cost-effective in the long run because while there are set-up, operational
and other costs, these may be offset by savings in court costs through more
effective prosecutions; and the identification and forfeiture of proceeds of
crime;
may reveal if the target has become aware of police attention or if third parties
are at risk;
may reveal and identify other offenders but can also eliminate suspects;
may assist in locating assets derived from criminal activities;
effective for investigation crimes with no identifiable victim such as official

corruption and money laundering.
Concerns about telecommunications include
possible intrusiveness and the likelihood of non-criminal personal

conversations being overheard and innocent people having their privacy
invaded.
The Commonwealth Privacy Commissioner has argued that
eavesdropping, where it involves the interception of communications,
represents one of the most serious infringements of privacy and that the
countervailing benefits to be gained from interception must be considerable to
justify its use;31
fear of abuse of powers by agencies;
possible start-up and operational costs ;
30
The advantages and concerns were canvassed in the PCJC, Report No 50, pp 18-19.
31
PCJC Report No 50, p 25 citing Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Review of
Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, Privacy Commissioner Submission, 1992, pp 1-2.
Page 15
lack of adequate accountability mechanisms and safeguards.
HISTORY OF QUEENSLAND DEVELOPMENTS
The issue of telecommunications interception powers for law enforcement agencies

has been considered on a number of occasions over the past few decades.32
The Fitzgerald Inquiry, in its 1989 Report, noted that criminals have increasing
access to optical and audio devices for surveillance and sophisticated
communications interception and recording equipment. However, in response to
concerns about Government misusing and abusing electronically stored
information about citizens, albeit justifiable, legislative attention has instead been
directed at restricting Government use of those devices, particularly
telecommunications interception.33 The Inquiry considered that the interception of
communications, subject to strict controls, was one tool to consider in any
comprehensive review of law enforcement powers.34
In September 1991, the CJC and the Office of the Minister for Police and
Emergency Services released the Police Powers in Queensland: An Issues Paper,
the submissions to which contained opposing viewpoints. The QPS stressed the
need for telephone interception powers conferred by State legislation that complied
with minimum standards and safeguards set by the Commonwealth Act while other
submissions, such as that made by the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties,
raised privacy concerns.
5.1 CRIMINAL
JUSTICE
COMMISSION
INTERCEPTION REPORT 1995
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The CJCs Telecommunications Interception and Criminal Investigation in

Queensland: A Report (January 1995) (the CJC Report) considered whether the
QPS and the CJC should have the power to intercept telecommunications in certain
prescribed circumstances. The Report found that telecommunications interception
powers would enhance the capacity of both bodies to combat organised and major
32
Much of the discussion below is taken from the Criminal Justice Commissions
Telecommunications Interception and Criminal Investigation in Queensland: A Report,
January 1995, ch 2.
33
G E Fitzgerald QC, Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated
Police Misconduct, Report of a Commission of Inquiry Pursuant to Orders in Council, 1989,
p 173.
34
Report of a Commission of Inquiry Pursuant to Orders in Council, 1989, p 313.
Page 16
crime and, if made to comply with the controls and safeguards in the
Commonwealth Act, would be less intrusive and more cost effective than other
types of electronic surveillance (eg video surveillance, listening devices) already
allowed. The CJC did not consider that it was always a practical or appropriate
solution for Queensland agencies to rely on Commonwealth agencies to obtain
warrants for assisting or taking over investigations.35
It was noted that the 1994 Barrett Review of the operation of the Commonwealth
Act had indicated that telecommunications interception can enhance the use and
management of other more costly surveillance methods and enable an investigation
to be quickly focused. It can, for example, lead to the detection of the main,
intermediate and minor players, the sources and locations of evidence, the
methods to be used, locations of meetings etc which can then focus other
surveillance such as physical tracking.36 It was also noted that there had been a
good success rate in obtaining convictions on the basis of intercepted information.
It was found that the Commonwealth Act has been reviewed more regularly and
critically than State legislation dealing with other types of electronic surveillance
which has resulted in the Commonwealth Act having a number of accountability
and privacy protection measures built into it.37
Accordingly, it was recommended that the Queensland Government introduce a
State Telecommunications (Interception) Act conforming to the requirements of the
Commonwealth Act.38
The recommendation was supported by the Parliamentary Criminal Justice
Committee (PCJC) in its May 1995 Report published following public hearings
and reviewing submissions.
However, the PCJC considered that the
Commonwealth Act contained inadequate mechanisms to protect against invasion
of privacy and abuse and recommended that additional safeguards were needed in
any Queensland legislation.39
35
CJC, Telecommunications Interception and Criminal Investigation in Queensland, p 39.
36
Review into the Long Term Effectiveness of Telecommunications Iinterception, p 93.
37
38
39
PCJC, Review of the Criminal Justice Commissions Report on Telecommunications

Interception and Criminal Investigation in Queensland, Report No 29, May 1995.
Page 17
5.2 TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) QUEENSLAND BILL 1998

In 1997, the then Coalition Government released a Review of Police Powers
Discussion Paper covering a range of policing matters, including interception
warrants and also conducted a number of public forums.
In March 1998, the then Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister
for Racing, the Hon T R Cooper MLA, introduced the Telecommunications
(Interception) Queensland Bill 1998 into the Queensland Parliament. It is
substantially similar to the 2003 Bill currently before the Parliament, including
conferring oversight/inspection powers on a newly established principal
inspector.
When introducing the 1998 Bill, the Minister said that it was intended to
complement other investigative resources given to police officers under the PPR
Act and was the first step in enabling certain Queensland authorities (the QPS and
the then CJC and Queensland Crime Commission (QCC)) to conduct
telecommunications interception in accordance with the Commonwealth Act.
The 1998 Bill lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament on 19 May 1998.
During 1999 Tasmania passed interception legislation, making Queensland the
only State without it.
5.1 PROJECT KRYSTAL A STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF ORGANISED

CRIME IN QUEENSLAND
In June 1999, the QC) and the QPS released a public information paper entitled
Project KRYSTAL A Strategic Assessment of Organised Crime in Queensland40
which was intended to increase public awareness about organised crime in
Queensland and to generally explain the law enforcement strategies that have been,
and are being, developed to deal with it. It also recommended tactics to improve
the detection and disruption of organised crime.
The Report concluded that organised criminal activity was widespread and firmly
entrenched in Queensland.41 It was considered that the Queensland public and
government representatives must be kept appropriately informed about the nature
and extent of such activity.
40
Queensland Crime Commission and Queensland Police Service, Project KRYSTAL A

Strategic Assessment of Organised Crime in Queensland, Public Information Paper, June 1999.
41
Project KRYSTAL A Strategic Assessment of Organised Crime in Queensland, p 65.
Page 18
The Report identified a number of legislative issues restricting the ability of

Queensland law enforcement agencies to effectively combat organised crime, one
being the lack of power to intercept telecommunications concerning organised
crime investigations.42 It noted that interception capabilities are essential to the
effective disruption of organised crime and are more selective and less intrusive
than the currently used listening devices.43 One of the recommendations made was
that law enforcement agencies seek legislative changes including in the area of
telecommunications interception and appropriate resources to support them.44
The Report noted that technological advances have facilitated a variety of
interactions across national borders, not all of which have been legitimate business
communications. The use of information technology, particularly the Internet, is a
challenge for law enforcement agencies faced with attempting to track coded or
encrypted messages or impenetrable secure environments in which information can
be transmitted. Increasing incidents of hacking pose a huge threat to financial
systems, strategic public utilities, and databases.45 These communications have no
jurisdictional boundaries, which creates another obstacle for law enforcement
bodies.
5.2 PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE REPORT

During 1999, the PCJC thought it timely to consider the issues involved in
telecommunications interception and reported to Parliament in December 1999 (A
Report on The Telecommunications Interception Power in Queensland balancing
investigative powers with safeguards, Report No 50). It considered that the central
issue was the effect of interception on the privacy of third parties. A number of
public hearings were conducted and the Committee also considered evidence about
the actual extent of any infringements on privacy in other jurisdictions. It was
found that there were no examples, in any jurisdiction, of significant breaches of
the legislation or abuse of powers, such as disclosure of material to officers who
have no legitimate interest in the investigation, or to a media body.
Although the PCJC considered that the Commonwealth Acts safeguards were less
than optimal it was, nevertheless, satisfied that the regime of record-keeping, audit
42
Project KRYSTAL A Strategic Assessment of Organised Crime in Queensland, pp 15-16.
43
44
Project KRYSTAL A Strategic Assessment of Organised Crime in Queensland, p xi.
45
Page 19
and inspection, and the safeguards established by the Commonwealth Act did
appear to be working well.46
It was noted that there is legal uncertainty about whether a State Parliament has
constitutional power to legislate to impose further safeguards than those provided
in the Commonwealth Act. Legislation in other States does not vary from the
safeguards contained in the Commonwealth legislation. In light of this, the PCJC
recommended that Queensland enact legislation to enable law enforcement bodies
to intercept telecommunications that accords with the requirements of the
Commonwealth Act with no further safeguards apart from the recommendation that
an independent inspection role be given to the Public Interest Monitor who would
be involved at a stage prior to the warrant application.47 The Public Interest
Monitor was established by the PPR Act to monitor, in the public interest, the use
of listening devices, appear at applications for approval to use those devices, and
conduct covert searches.
It was considered that a new role under
telecommunications interception legislation would not be dissimilar to that
performed already.
The safeguards in the Commonwealth Act plus the general oversight and
accountability mechanisms to which Queenslands law enforcement agencies are
subject under relevant State legislation would, according to the Committee, appear
to provide a strong supervisory regime.
On 8 November 2000, the then Queensland Minister for Police and Corrective
Services tabled his interim response to the PCJC Report stating that the Queensland
Government will explore all possible legislative avenues to guarantee that the
publics legitimate civil liberties are protected and also ensure law enforcement
agencies have the tools they need to curb major and organised crime. The Minister
stated that options for the possible introduction of such powers under a State
scheme were still under consideration.
In April 2002, the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC),
which superseded the PCJC, wrote to the current Police Minister, the Hon Tony
McGrady MP, noting that the final response to Report No 50 had not been tabled.
The Police Minister responded that as the Commonwealth Government was in the
middle of finalising new arrangements for its crime agencies, Queensland would
wait to see what implications those might hold for this State before taking action.48
46
PCJC Report No 50, pp 32-33.
47
PCJC Report No 50, Executive Summary.
48
Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee Annual Report 2001-2002, p 6.
Page 20
5.3 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

In July 2002, it was reported that the Queensland Police Minister had ruled out the
introduction of telecommunications interception powers at a meeting of the
Australian Police Ministers Council.49 In the aftermath of the October 2002 Bali
bombings, Queensland law enforcement agencies again urged the Government to
give the CMC and QPS interception powers but this was ruled out by the Premier.50
In January 2003, the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) commenced operation.
It has replaced the NCA and incorporates two other Commonwealth bodies. State
and Commonwealth Governments have agreed to a framework that would require
the Commonwealth and the States legislation to pass complementary legislation.
The Australian Crime Commission (Queensland) Act 2003 (Qld), which received
assent in November 2003, extends the ACCs jurisdiction to Queensland offences
with no federal aspect, including conducting intelligence operations and
investigations, and confers on the ACC certain duties, powers (including coercive
examination powers that were not available to the NCA) and functions.
In June 2002, the PCMC wrote to the Premier urging the Government to look
favourably on recommendations of the previous PCJC that the CMC and QPS be
given telecommunications interception powers. The Premier responded stating that
the establishment of the new ACC may have implications for the CMCs ability to
access intercepted information and that this and related issues were under
consideration.51
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) QUEENSLAND

BILL 2003 (QLD)
The Telecommunications (Interception) Queensland Bill 2003 was introduced on 9

October 2003 by Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lawrence Springborg MP as a
Private Members Bill. Mr Springborg stated that he wished to respond to the
request of the QPS by introducing laws that make it easier for them to investigate
serious crime and organised criminal activity.52
49
Sean Parnell, State police denied phone taps, Courier Mail, 20 July 2002, p 4.
50
Matthew Franklin, Police wont get phone tap powers, Courier Mail, 31 October 2002, p 5.
51
Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee Annual Report 2002-2003, p 5.
52
Queensland Nationals, Springborg moves for phone interception powers, Press Release, 9
October 2003.
Page 21
In particular, the new powers provided by the Bill aim to curb the significant
growth in mobile drug laboratories small laboratories that are quickly and easily
moved to avoid detection in Queensland over the past two years (from 77 to 138),
recently identified by the Australian Crime Commission.53 Queensland has the
highest number of such laboratories in Australia, making up over half the national
total of 240, with the next highest being New South Wales at 32.
The objective of the Bill is to establish a recording, reporting and inspection
regime to complement the Commonwealth Act so that the QPS and CMC may have
the power to use telecommunications interception as an investigative tool for
serious offences prescribed by the Commonwealth Act.54
As noted earlier, before the Commonwealth Attorney-General can declare the QPS
or CMC to be an agency for the purposes of obtaining a warrant under the
Commonwealth Act, s 35 of that Act requires State legislation to be passed
establishing the aforementioned reporting, inspection and recording requirements.
The Bill seeks to satisfy the preconditions for the making of that declaration. The
Attorney-General must be satisfied that the relevant law of the State makes
satisfactory provision for
imposing certain record keeping obligations on chief officers of eligible

authorities. Accordingly, cl 6 provides that the QPS Commissioner and the
CMC chair (as chief officers of those bodies) must cause to be kept in the
authoritys records
each warrant issued;
a copy of each notification given to the AFP of the issue of a warrant on a

telephone application;
each instrument revoking a warrant;
a copy of each evidentiary certificate. Section 61(4) of the Commonwealth

Act allows certifying officers (under the Queensland Bill being specified
senior officers of the QPS and a Commissioner of the CMC) to issue a
written certificate setting out relevant facts about the execution of a warrant
and dealing with information obtained under it. The certificate can be
received into evidence as prima facie evidence of matters stated in it; and
each authorisation to allow the communication of intercepted information.
53
Australian Crime Commission, Australian Illicit Drug Report 2001-2002, March 2003, p 47.
54
Mr L Springborg MP, Second Reading Speech, p 3886; Telecommunications (Interception)

Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld), cl 3.
Page 22
In addition, cl 7 provides that the chief officers of the QPS and CMC (for
brevity, these persons will be referred to as chief officers) must keep written
records about telephone applications for warrants; a statement about the
outcome of the application; and particulars about the warrant and interceptions
that take place under it. The records must also contain particulars of restricted
records (ie records of intercepted information, whether lawfully obtained or not)
in the possession of the authority. They must also provide details about the use
made of lawfully obtained information, including when given in evidence in a
proceeding. The Explanatory Notes (p 4) state that this clause is intended to
facilitate the independent inspection powers under the Bill (see below).
requiring the chief officers to give the Minister a copy of each warrant issued to
the QPS or CMC and each instrument revoking such warrant as soon as
practicable (see cl 8(1));
requiring the chief officers to give the Minister, within 3 months after the
warrant ceases, a written report about the use made of the information obtained
by interceptions under the warrant and the communication of such information
to third parties outside the QPS or CMC (see cl 8(2));
requiring the chief officers to give the Minister as soon as practicable, but
within 3 months after 30 June, a written report that sets out the information that
Part IX, Div 2 of the Commonwealth Act requires to be set out in the AttorneyGenerals Annual Report (eg Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979
Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2002 (see above)) and that can be derived
from the QPS or CMCs records. That is
how many applications made and warrants issued;
particulars about duration of warrants;
information about the effectiveness of warrants;
report regarding interceptions without a warrant;
expenditure information set out in s 103.
These matters were discussed earlier in the context of the Commonwealth Act.
Clause 8(1)(c) of the Bill gives effect to this requirement. In addition, cl 8(2)
states that the report to the Minister must include a statement of the total
expenditure, including that of a capital nature, incurred by the CMC and QPS;
requiring the State Minister to give the Commonwealth Attorney-General a

copy of the warrant issued, or the instrument revoking it, or the
abovementioned reports as soon as practicable after such is received (see cl 9);
Page 23
requiring the chief officer to keep a restricted record in a secure place; and to
destroy it when no longer needed or required for inspections (see cl 10);
requiring regular inspections of the QPS and CMCs records for the purpose of
ascertaining the extent of compliance with security and destruction, and
recording requirements, and associated matters (see above). The inspection
must be by an authority independent of the QPS and CMC. This function is
performed by the Ombudsman for the Commonwealth, NSW, and Victorian
legislation. Part 3 of the Bill (cls 11-12) gives the principal inspector this
independent inspection function. The role will be performed by the Public
Interest Monitor, as suggested by the PCJCs Report No 50 which also noted
that the role was accepted by a number of stakeholders, even by those such as
the Council for Civil Liberties which opposed interception powers.55
The s 35 precondition concerning the independent inspecting authority requires
that authority to have sufficient powers conferred [on it] to enable [it] to make
a proper inspection of the agencies records. Accordingly, cls 15-17 set out
the principal inspectors general inspection powers to assist him or her in
checking compliance and enables the principal inspector to obtain relevant
information from officers of agencies or require their attendance before a
person. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse is an offence: cl 25.
requiring the independent inspecting authority to report to the Minister about

the results of the inspection. Clause 13 of the Bill requires the principal
inspector to give such a written report to the Minister within 3 months after the
end of each financial year or at any other times as the Minister requests. The
Minister must give the Commonwealth Attorney-General a copy as soon as
practicable: cl 23;
empowering the inspecting authority to make a report about any contravention

of the Commonwealth Act or the requirements about providing the State
Minister with a copy of each warrant and/or revocation instrument (see cl 14);
Clause 21 of the Bill prevents the principal inspector from disclosing information
obtained in that capacity when making a report as Public Interest Monitor. It also
makes it an offence for a person to make unauthorised disclosure of intercepted
information that came to their knowledge in their capacity as a principal inspector.
Note that cl 22 enables the principal inspector to exchange information with the
Commonwealth Ombudsman where relevant to each others functions.
A general confidentiality provision, applying to persons having functions under the
legislation, is contained in cl 24.
55
PCJC Report No 50, pp 35-37.
Page 24
RECENT PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2003

RBR2003/01
RESEARCH BRIEFS
Reform of Negligence Law The Queensland Response: The draft Civil Liability Bill 2002
RBR2003/02
Protecting Transgender Rights under Queenslands Discrimination Law Amendment Act 2002
Feb 2003
RBR2003/03
Legal Profession Reform in Queensland: Multi-Disciplinary Practices (MDPs)
Feb 2003
Feb 2003
RBR2003/04
The Coroners Bill 2002 (Qld): Highlighting the important role of coroners in accident prevention
Feb 2003
RBR2003/05
Protecting Workers With Family Responsibilities under Queenslands Discrimination Law Amendment Act 2002
Feb 2003
RBR2003/06
Land Clearing Offences and the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld)
Mar 2003
RBR2003/07
The Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2003
Mar 2003
RBR2003/08
The Sports Drug Testing Bill 2003 (Qld)
Mar 2003
RBR2003/09
Abortion Law Reform: An Overview of Current Issues
Apr 2003
RBR2003/10
Enhancing Community Safety: The Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld)
Apr 2003
RBR2003/11
Defamation and the Internet: A New Challenge
May 2003
RBR2003/12
New Rules for Fitness Services: The Fair Trading (Code of Practice - Fitness Industry) Regulation 2003
May 2003
RBR2003/13
Change of Name Provisions under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2003
May 2003
May 2003
RBR2003/14
Taking Childrens Evidence Using TechnologyEvidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld)
RBR2003/15
Protecting Breastfeeding Mothers under Queenslands Discrimination Law Amendment Act 2002
Aug 2003
RBR2003/16
Regulation of Inbound Tourism Operators Tourism Services Bill 2003 (Qld)
Aug 2003
RBR2003/17
Quality Assurance for Higher Education The Higher Education (General Provisions) Bill 2003 (Qld)
Aug 2003
Aug 2003
RBR2003/18
The Child Protection (International Measures) Bill 2003 (Qld)
RBR2003/19
The Housing Bill 2003 (Qld)
Aug 2003
RBR2003/20
Criminal History Disclosure Reforms under the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 (Queensland)
Aug 2003
RBR2003/21
Aug 2003
RBR2003/22
Committal Hearings and Disclosure Requirements under the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Bill
2003 (Qld)
Farm Debt Mediation Bill 2003 (Qld): Obliging Mortgagees to Engage in Mediation with Rural Producers
RBR2003/23
Funeral Benefit Businesses and the Second-Hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill 2003 (Qld)
Sept 2003
RBR2003/24
The costs of raising a child: Cattanach v Melchior and The Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003
(Qld)
The Building Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld): Strengthening swimming pool safety laws
Sept 2003
Prospects for Aquaculture and amendments to the Fisheries Act under the Primary Industries and Other
Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld)
Earn or Learn The Youth Participation in Education and Training Bill 2003 and the Training Reform Bill
(Qld) 2003
The Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Bill 2003 (Qld)
Sept 2003
RBR2003/25
RBR2003/26
RBR2003/27
RBR2003/28
RBR2003/29
RBR2003/30
RBR2003/31
RBR2003/32
RBR2003/33
RBR2003/34
RBR 2003/35
Sept 2003
Sept 2003
Oct 2003
Oct 2003
The Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2003 (Qld): Disqualification of Security
Providers who Impersonate Police Officers
Telecommuting: Issues in Public and Private Sector Employment
Oct 2003
Magistrates Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld): A More Collegiate Approach to the Administration of the Magistrates
Court
Protecting Students from Sexual Abuse in Schools: the Education and Other Legislation (Student Protection)
Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld)
Protecting Consumers of Legal Services: Chapter 3 of the Legal Profession Bill 2003 (Qld)
Oct 2003
Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 (Qld): New Search, Seizure and
Detention Powers to Tackle Chroming
Telephone Tapping Powers for Queensland Law Enforcement Agencies: the Telecommunications
(Interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld)
Research Papers are available as PDF files:
to members of the general public the full text of Research briefs is now available on the parliamentary web site, URL,
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications/publications.htm
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Library/Query.exe e-Documents & e-Articles Quick display of Librarys research

publications
A Subject Index to Research Publications is available at the following site: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Parlib/Publications/bysubject.htm
Parliamentary Library - Research Publications & Resources Telephone (07) 3406 7108
Orders may be sent to Carissa Griggs, cgrigg@parliament.qld.gov.au
Oct 2003
Nov 2003
Nov 2003
Nov 2003
Nov 2003
This Publication:
RBR 2003/35
Telephone Tapping Powers for Queensland Law Enforcement

Agencies: the Telecommunications (Interception) Queensland
Bill 2003 (Qld) (QPL November 2003)
Related Publications:
LB 3/00
Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 2000 Surveillance

Warrants (QPL March 2000)

Queensland Bill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Queensland Bill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Queensland Parliamentary Library

Telephone Tapping Powers

Queensland Parliamentary Library

(07) 3406 7116

Ms Nicolee Dixon, Senior Parliamentary Research Officer

(07) 3406 7409

Ms Renee Giskes, Parliamentary Research Officer

(07) 3406 7241

Queensland Parliamentary Library, 2003

Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at:

CURRENT POSITION IN QUEENSLAND ..................................................2

POWER TO INTERCEPT TELECOMMUNICATIONS: THE

ELIGIBLE STATE AGENCIES ...........................................................................5

APPLICATION FOR WARRANT ........................................................................7

RELEVANT OFFENCES UPON WHICH APPLICATION FOR WARRANT MADE ....8

ISSUE OF WARRANTS .....................................................................................9

DEALING WITH INTERCEPTED INFORMATION ...............................................10

REPORTS ABOUT INTERCEPTIONS ................................................................11

ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS ....................................................................12

CIVIL REMEDIES ..........................................................................................13

AGENCY COMMENTS IN 2002 ANNUAL REPORT ..........................................13

POSSIBLE BENEFITS AND CONCERNS..................................................13

HISTORY OF QUEENSLAND DEVELOPMENTS...................................15

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) QUEENSLAND BILL 1998 ............17

PROJECT KRYSTAL A STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF ORGANISED CRIME IN

PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE REPORT.........................18

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS .............................................................................20

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) QUEENSLAND BILL

RECENT QPL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2003 ........................................25

Telecommunications (interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld)

The Telecommunications (Interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld) was

Mr L Springborg MP, Leader of the Opposition, Telecommunications (Interception)

Queensland. Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, A Report on the

Queensland Parliamentary Library

CURRENT POSITION IN QUEENSLAND

Telecommunications (Interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld), Explanatory Notes, p 2.

Criminal Justice Commission (CJC), Telecommunications Interception and Criminal

Telecommunications (interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld)

Given the supremacy of the Commonwealth in the telecommunications interception

PCJC Report No 50, p 4.

See also Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950, s 19C.

Queensland Parliamentary Library

POWER TO INTERCEPT TELECOMMUNICATIONS: THE

where the interception results from, or is incidental to, action taken by an

See Commonwealth Attorney-General, Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 Report for

Telecommunications (interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld)

by an AFP officer or State police officer in certain situations of urgency

where the interception of a communication occurs under a warrant. Part VI

3.1 ELIGIBLE STATE AGENCIES

the Premier of a State must request the Attorney-General to make the

the State Government must have passed complementary legislation complying

Queensland Parliamentary Library

NSW Crime Commission

NSW Police Service

Against 6 June 1990

South Australia Police

Western Australia Police Service

Police Integrity Commission (NSW)

Anti-Corruption 24 September 2001

Telecommunications (interception) Queensland Bill 2003 (Qld)

Commonwealth Act. In this situation, it may be that the Commonwealth agency

3.2 APPLICATION FOR WARRANT

CJC, Telecommunications Interception and Criminal Investigation in Queensland, pp 35-36.