Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Locke Keith: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9365] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have a few amendments under this part. The first is an amendment to a section of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978. It is similar to an amendment I moved concerning the Crimes Act in the debate on Part 1. I was worried about the fishing expeditions that could be launched by the police; that they could get a warrant—in this case under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act—and use it for fishing expeditions in relation to a number of other offences. I will not go over that whole argumentation because it is basically the same as I used on an amendment to Part 1. 
The next amendment I have is to clause 33 which drew considerable discussion by very reputable people in the community including lawyers and lecturers etc. who were against this provision. They saw it as affecting a common-law right against self-incrimination. Several people submitted to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this clause. The problem is that a search warrant can be gained by the police under the inserted section for any offence at all—even the smallest of offences. The constable can enter the home of the person or tenant and if he or she owns or has a computer—as most people do these days—that police officer can demand to be given access to it and everything on it. The problem with that is that the person has to give encryption devices passwords ways to get around firewalls etc. in order that the entire contents of that computer are made available to the constable even if the warrant is for the most minimal of crimes. 
I do not know about other members of Parliament but I know that most of us have a lot of our lives on a computer. It can have our very intimate correspondence and often our files go back years. There are hundreds and thousands of communications and all kinds of things on our computers and a humble police officer going into our places for a small offence could have access to them and force us to incriminate ourselves which is against that common law. 
Again there is a safety provision. We have talked about these comfort provisions. New subsection (2A) of section 198B inserted by clause 33 states: “A person may not be required under subsection (1) to give any information tending to incriminate the person.” but the next two subsections go on to state that if information tending to incriminate the person is on the computer it has to be provided by that person who has to give those encryption devices. If general information elsewhere in the apartment let us say tends to incriminate the person he or she does not need to give it. So there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in this provision and I think it is wisest to abide by the wisdom of the many legal people who submitted to our select committee and to eliminate this provision. 
My next three amendments relate to the tracking provisions in clause 34. I was a bit concerned that the tracking provisions available to the police could be used for virtually any offence so I wanted the word “serious” to be put before the word “offence” in the new subsection 200B(2)(a). The two really substantive amendments that I want to move came from the Privacy Commissioner who made a substantial submission to the select committee. He put forward two ideas one of which relates to these warrants. In particular when an interception device is put on a person or vehicle or whatever it is—interception devices are very tiny things and can be put on people quite easily—prior to the gaining of a warrant then there should be some report as to why that happened because we do not want the police to get into the habit of putting tracking devices on a person prior to a warrant being issued.