Ian Gilfillan: Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 10 April 2001

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2001 Autumn Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

I will regard this as a test amendment. I know it does not look particularly significant as it reads. The subsections that are substituted go on to outline the implementation of public interest advocate. This stands not in direct conflict with but in some contrast to the amendment that the Attorney-General has on file.

As I understand a reading of the letter that the Attorney sent, the Attorney intends to appoint the Director for Public Prosecutions as the person who would fulfil, in part, the role that had in my mind been intended for the public interest advocate. It is a worthy try and I appreciate the Attorney's effort, but it does not win me over. If we are to have a public interest advocate, that person and that office must be seen to be totally independent of any entity which may have a motive, however remote, which would incline towards the use of intrusive surveillance equipment with the expectation that that could be more rewarding for achieving successful prosecutions. I want to make that comment quite clearly and simply so there is no misunderstanding by the committee or the Attorney that I do not see that the DPP, in any way, can replace the intention of the role of public interest advocate.

I refer to the earlier debate not so much in detail but for those who want to check in Hansard the arguments that I put on Wednesday 3 March 1999 and Thursday 4 March 1999 in my second reading contribution; I also made extensive contributions in the committee stage. I certainly do not think it is to the advantage of the time of this committee for me to revisit those arguments, other than that they might crop up in discussion in the committee. Suffice to say that I have not changed my mind. The process of having the Legislative Review Committee look at the issue is satisfactory. I appreciate the measured way in which the chair of the committee, the Hon. Angus Redford, summed up the position as he saw it, and I have no quarrel with him: I think his representation of my position and, to a large extent, the view of the minority, was fair. It boiled down to a division of opinion which left us with a majority and a minority report, which probably, in essence, is not the most satisfactory situation: it would be more convenient if we had a unanimous view. I think the evidence we heard and the discussion in the committee largely reflected concern-emphasised, again, by some of the comments that the chair, Angus Redford, made in his contribution-that it is a vulnerable area. The abuse of the powers of surveillance, with increasingly more sophisticated technology, is a serious risk to civil rights and to privacy in a community which prides itself on protecting and fighting for the rights of individuals. I think that harks back to the main argument that came forward when we were proposing the public interest advocate.

Of interest, I think, but not directly impacting on what we are discussing, is the fact that my colleague, Senator Andrew Murray, last year raised in federal parliament what he believed to be quite a huge increase in Australian police and intelligence services apparently secretly tapping an increasing number of citizens. It is alleged that, amongst those citizens, are judges and MPs. It is with that sense of unease that I feel that we cannot glibly pass this off on the basis that we have Supreme Court judges of integrity, that the numbers of applications are small and therefore we have nothing to worry about. We must act before we have something to worry about. For that reason, if successful, I will continue to move this series of amendments to establish a public interest advocate.

The imposition of cost on the current structures is minimal. The Hon. Angus Redford indicated the small numbers which occur in Queensland and the still smaller numbers which one can expect in South Australia. The system in Queensland, which is a per hour or a pro rata charge system, means that, in relative terms, the cost will be inconsequential. However, for security and the public's peace of mind that this system is not being misused, over used or inappropriately used by over diligent or over enthusiastic police who are keen to use the technologies in situations which do not justify them, and for the sake of police, those who care about it and the public, we need a safeguard to ensure that this increasingly more intrusive and sophisticated equipment is used responsibly.

As I said in 1999, we support the police having the opportunity to use this increasingly sophisticated and effective surveillance equipment where it is justified, but we cannot rest assured that it is being used properly in all cases unless we have a public interest advocate in place. I will move this amendment and treat it as a test case. If it is successful I will certainly proceed with the amendments seeking to establish a public interest advocate, but if I lose it I will accept that the committee is not supportive of the public interest advocate.