Page 708 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The final criterion is that the law enforcement officer must believe or suspect on reasonable grounds that the use of a surveillance device will be necessary in the course of that investigation for the purpose of enabling evidence or information to be obtained about the commission of the relevant offence or the identity or location of the alleged offender. Under this criterion, the offence could be occurring either wholly in the ACT or in the ACT and in one or more participating jurisdictions.
A further restriction on the possible abuse of surveillance devices contained in the bill is the independent oversight of the scheme by the ACT Ombudsman. The Ombudsman may inspect records made under the foreshadowed act. If the Ombudsman inspects the records, a report on the inspection must be prepared under the terms of the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act 2004. The report will be de-identified to protect operatives, agencies, investigations and potential prosecutions.
The Ombudsman’s authority in this bill works alongside the authority in the Controlled Operations Act and the Assumed Identities Act to enable the Ombudsman to examine the interplay of an authority to use an assumed identity with a controlled operation.
To further ensure that reasonable limits apply and privacy considerations are taken into account, there are additional safeguards and accountability measures incorporated into the bill to ensure that surveillance powers are appropriately used and not abused. These safeguards extend beyond those currently available at common law and include: requiring the approval by judicial officers of the covert use of surveillance devices by law enforcement officers; allowing for emergency authorisations in urgent situations, which still require law enforcement officers to apply to a Supreme Court judge for approval of the use of the emergency powers; requiring law enforcement agencies to record details relating to the execution of warrants and to provide annual reports to the Attorney-General on the use and effectiveness of surveillance devices; restrictions on the use, communication and publication of information obtained from surveillance devices, including safe storage; and obligations on law enforcement agencies to maintain a register and keep records connected with warrants and emergency authorisations.
As I have outlined, this bill will provide law enforcement agencies working in the ACT with modern powers to break down and infiltrate organised crime groups. The foreshadowed act will work in synergy with the government’s controlled operations and assumed identities law. This combination of laws will enhance the ability of the police to involve themselves covertly in organised crime, under strict operational control, to gain evidence and intelligence about criminal behaviour.
I am pleased to say that this bill will also strengthen the collaboration of law enforcement agencies across borders by enabling other jurisdictions with corresponding law to use their authorised assumed identities in the ACT, and the ACT to use surveillance devices in other participating jurisdictions.
I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne) adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video