I rise this morning to make a contribution to the debate on the Telecommunications Interception Bill 2009. This bill delivers on the Bligh Labor government’s Toward Q2 objectives of delivering safer communities. By allowing telephone-tapping powers to the Queensland Police Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission, we are giving them the tools they need to fight crime. Importantly, we are ensuring that there is a safeguard through the provision of a role for Queensland’s Public Interest Monitor, the PIM, prior to, and at hearings of, applications for interception warrants. Because these are highly invasive into people’s privacy, this has been an important safeguard. It will operate in the same way as when a general listening device is requested to be put into a potential criminal’s house.

As we all know, telecommunications interception is a highly effective way to investigate serious and organised criminal activity. It enables law enforcement agencies to gather information which can help crack down on organised criminal activity such as what we see with outlaw motorcycle gangs, drug rings and the like.

I am satisfied by the fact that the bill sets out obligations that must be met by the QPS and CMC to keep comprehensive documents relating to interception warrants, make records of each interception and the use made of intercepted information, and report such information to the state minister in relation to each warrant. This annual reporting requirement by the QPS and CMC to the state minister and then to the federal Attorney-General means there are further checks and balances in place to ensure the probity of this form of crime fighting.

I am pleased with the further safeguard of the Public Interest Monitor being part of the front-end accountability mechanism for interception warrants. As we know, the Public Interest Monitor is unique to Queensland law enforcement legislation. The Public Interest Monitor is an independent statutory officeholder who is accountable to the relevant minister of parliament rather than the Queensland Police Service. By this front-end involvement of the PIM, we are ensuring that the public interest is satisfied as the PIM is consulted before, and is present at, hearings of applications brought by Queensland law enforcement authorities. It already operates for surveillance powers and covert search powers, as well as terrorism related control orders and preventative detention orders.

It has been recognised by other speakers in this debate that a conservative-led Queensland government introduced the Public Interest Monitor as protection when police or law enforcement agencies apply for a warrant to install a listening device or a tracking device. I have always supported this. The need for the PIM is based on the fact that the application is heard ex parte, meaning the accused is not there. The PIM is therefore the mechanism by which the accused is represented.

In Queensland, the conservatives in recent years introduced private members’ bills on telephone interception that did not include the PIM. Why didn’t they want the PIM at that time? And to extend that further, why didn’t the conservatives bring in a bill to remove the PIM from the other legislation? Despite all the harping from the member for Southern Downs and other copycat members, I believe their private members’ bills were just cheap political stunts. Either they knew how important the Public Interest Monitor was and were fudging it or they have previously just paid lip-service to caring about the rights of members of our community to have surety and confidence in the practical application of intrusive surveillance methods. I think it is the latter.

Labor has demanded that the PIM be an integral part of the protection to minimise the risk that telephone interceptions be used in an inappropriate manner, and we are delivering for the people of Queensland. The role of the PIM is not permitted under current enabling federal legislation. Queensland approached John Howard to change the federal laws to allow the Public Interest Monitor, and John Howard consistently refused to do so. Following the election of the Rudd government, Anna Bligh commenced discussions in relation to changes to the federal enabling legislation. Prime Minister Rudd has shown leadership by agreeing to make those changes and we are introducing this legislation so as to be ready to give our law enforcement agencies a new tool in their fight against organised crime and corruption.

As I said previously, I support this crime-fighting initiative of allowing telephone intercept powers with the protection of the Public Interest Monitor as part of the process. I would also like to place on record the work that was done by the previous member for Redlands, John English, who has always advocated for the extension of police powers. I know he will be pleased to see this legislation finally enacted so that law enforcement officers can do their jobs more effectively. I commend the bill to the House.