Clendon David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Search and Surveillance Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1115. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a call just to reflect on some clauses in Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Bill that support our proposition that this bill is intended and designed to maximise the powers of the police and other agencies—an extraordinary number of agencies—to delve into people’s privacy. There is very little in this bill clearly that seeks to maximise the opportunity for people to protect their privacy. This is a catch-all bill. It is a sledgehammer bill seeking to cover every eventuality. 
A simple example of that is in some of the definitional clauses. Clause 87AD talks about what is actually a computer for the purpose of this particular part which is very much the nitty-gritty. This is how various agencies will go about the matter of delving into people’s private matters. For the purpose of this part it talks about computers. We know that computers are a primary target where search warrants or production orders or whatever are being executed. It goes to great lengths to include anything that might possibly be deemed to be part of a computer system and defines a computer system as “a computer; or … 2 or more interconnected computers; or … any communication links between computers or to remote terminals … or … 2 or more interconnected computers combined with any communication links … to any remote terminals or any other device; and … includes any part of the items … and all related input output processing storage software or communication facilities and stored data”. 
That is quite a remarkably adept attempt to think about how we can possibly broaden the definition of what is a computer. Clearly any electronic device—a computer an iPad a telephone a smartphone a smart drive a data stick—any and all of these items which are perfectly legitimate items for anybody to own become accessible to a search and to an investigation. There is no effort in this bill to minimise the scope of what might be legally investigated if this bill passes. 
Similarly I think it is interesting to put on the record the range of bodies and individuals who might be empowered to conduct searches to exercise search warrants and so on under this bill. Indeed in clause 87AC we learn that an enforcement officer in relation to the provisions in this part includes a constable—yes; logically it would. A constable is defined as any sworn police officer of no matter what rank. That is as we would expect. It also goes on to say that an enforcement officer can be any persons authorised in column 3 of the schedule of this bill. 
It is quite interesting to go and have a look at the individuals or the people who might be described as enforcement officers. The first person you see pop up in the schedule is an “ACVM officer”. I had to go away and discover that that is actually a person empowered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act. We go on to discover that it includes animal welfare inspectors high-seas fisheries inspectors special inspectors with some sort of power under the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act anti-personnel mines officers people executing powers under the Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act and the Biosecurity Act—people exercising authority under that Act. Designated persons may search for evidence of offences against the Commodity Levies Act. I struggled to find anybody any Government agency that might be excluded from the right to exercise the extraordinarily invasive powers that are given by the various provisions of this bill. 
In clause 130 and the following clauses there is this question of privilege and this has been referred to in various contexts. I would just like to highlight as Mr Parker made mention of in another context the question of privilege. It encompasses the relationship between a person and their lawyer medical practitioner minister of religion or clinical psychologist and it encompasses journalists. The Minister has assured us that information that is privileged will be protected because no police officer acting honourably will search or investigate material if they believe privilege might—