The New South Wales police force is overusing intrusive technology to monitor the phones and computers of people suspected of committing less serious crime, the commonwealth ombudsman has found.<\/p>\n
The watchdog said Victoria and Queensland police<\/a> were not keeping sufficient records to justify their use of the electronic surveillance powers, while NSW police \u201cwere unable to demonstrate\u201d they were meeting the requirements of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.<\/p>\n The act, referred to as the TIA Act, allows for police or security agencies to seek a warrant to intercept, access and disclose communications in order to investigate the commission or intended commission of a state or federal offence.<\/p>\n To access prospective data, the commonwealth ombudsman said the TIA allows surveillance of up to 45 days if it relates to investigating a crime which carries a penalty of at least three years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email<\/a><\/p>\n The commonwealth ombudsman\u2019s report looked at a sample of prospective data authorisations made to support public order offences. The report found that 24 prospective authorisations related to offences carrying only a financial penalty \u2013 not a jail term.<\/p>\n \u201cWe did not consider that the threshold to access prospective telecommunications data, being a serious offence or an offence punishable by at least 3 years\u2019 imprisonment, was met,\u201d the ombudsman wrote.<\/p>\n \u201cWe informed NSWPF that we consider the intention of parliament was that access to prospective telecommunications data would be limited to addressing serious, indictable offences, not summary offences that do not carry a term of imprisonment.<\/p>\n \u201cIn addition, it is difficult to see how the interference with the privacy of a person as a result of the disclosure of data would be justifiable or proportionate in circumstances where the substantive offence does not attract an imprisonment term.<\/p>\n \u201cAccordingly, we consider there is a not insignificant risk that a court would find that NSWPF have not used the powers lawfully.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement, a spokesperson for NSW police said they could not comment on which specific public order offences they used the powers for, \u201cdue to strict legislative non-disclosure and operational restrictions\u201d, but said police consider \u201cproportionality and privacy when exercising these powers\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cAdditional material regarding the authorising officer\u2019s rationale for granting these authorisations is available for inspection by the Ombudsman. In 2024 NSWPF strengthened its processes through a new record-keeping and compliance system, the details of which have been provided to the Ombudsman,\u201d the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n In a statement with the report\u2019s release, commonwealth ombudsman Iain Anderson said he was \u201cconcerned with the level of record-keeping by some agencies\u201d for the powers.<\/p>\n \u201cCovert electronic surveillance powers are highly intrusive and impact the privacy of individuals who are unaware and do not have the opportunity to challenge or complain about the use of these powers,\u201d his office said.<\/p>\n The report also raised concerns about records kept by Victoria and Queensland<\/a> police forces containing \u201cinsufficient information to demonstrate the requirements of the TIA Act were met\u201d.<\/p>\n