Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006, and the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006 and to support the amendment moved the member for Gellibrand and the comments made by the member for Werriwa.

The bills detail the establishment of the Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and a new system for dealing with complaints and investigations into police conduct. The new agency—the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—will investigate corruption allegations against law enforcement agencies and officers and will also have the capacity to conduct public inquires under the control of an integrity commissioner.

The bills are a welcome development, but I note that it has taken the coalition government almost two full years to come good on the commitment they made to set up this independent, national anticorruption body. Although we have had a delay in seeing the bills come before the parliament, it is good that they have finally got here and, as I said, I certainly do welcome that. Despite the delay in getting the bills here, there are, without a doubt, still a number of flaws in the bills, which I will touch later on.

As a former police officer, I have the highest regard for the police and the very difficult job that they do in obviously very trying circumstances. I also have a very high regard for the AFP and support their work. I believe that an independent  authority will help to maintain their already high standards. When it comes to issues such as these, the vast majority of the police and the public want a system that provides a lot of accountability. That is needed so that police are able to conduct their duties in a very professional manner. When it comes to disciplinary matters, it is important for police that a fair and just system exists so that complaints can be handled in a professional manner. As I said, a system whereby police services are made accountable is what the public and the police want; they want transparent systems.

We have heard many cases of police corruption over the years, particularly involving the Bjelke-Petersen National Party government. We do not have time here today to detail some of those instances. For the vast majority of police that are out there, day after day, doing the hard yards and doing their job, the fact that these systems will be put in place protects them as well. It is very important to have overriding and overreaching independent systems that protect them and that provide the public with a system whereby police are  accountable. In that sense I certainly welcome these bills. Again, particularly from a policing point of view and having been a police officer, I want to stress my highest regard for the police. Often we hear so many people condemning the police. The vast majority of them are doing a very difficult job under difficult circumstances, particularly many members of the AFP.

The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 establishes an Integrity Commissioner and a new agency, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It specifies powers for the investigation and reporting of corruption issues. It also creates new offences for not cooperating with the Integrity Commissioner. It is limited in its operational scope to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission and, as many speakers have said before, it should include other government agencies. It seems quite remarkable that other federal government agencies that have investigative powers have not been included in this particular legislation. One of the deficiencies of these bills is that they are not included in it.

The Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner will have a broad range of powers to investigate corruption but, as I said, may only investigate law enforcement agencies. There should have been more agencies listed in these bills. I will detail that a bit later on, but just to restrict it to the AFP and the ACC really has not gone far enough in that instance. As I said, I welcome the legislation, because we have waited a long time to get to this point—another example of this very arrogant and sloppy government.

The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 allows the Integrity Commissioner access to certain powers under the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act 1979. As I said, despite the delays in these bills, there are still many flaws. For example, the bill before us does not take into account the passage of the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Amendment Act 2006 and, as a consequence, the consequential bill is just rife with many redundant references. The member for Gellibrand outlined many of the technicalities that have to be rectified. That is purely an example of sloppy government to have this vast array of technicalities. It should have been improved at a much earlier stage. It is not correct at all. As I say, it is just another sign of this very arrogant government in not ensuring that we do not have bills like this that are very sloppy with constant references throughout.

The new system that is to be established under these bills is a marked improvement on the current system which relies upon the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate such matters. When any particular body is investigating itself, at the outset that does not seem appropriate. It seems quite outrageous that a body would be investigating itself and the actions of their people, because it often is not impartial and is also not perceived as being impartial. One of the reasons it has been frustrating and has taken so long for the government to get this bill to the House is that it has been necessary to rectify that. Obviously, if a body is investigating itself there is an apparent conflict of interest. It was not a decent system, whereby you could ensure a fair and just system, where there was a procedure to ensure that complaints were adequately heard and also a forum for police to have their issues heard. In addition to the previous situation, the Ombudsman did not have the range of powers that are proposed in this legislation and he would have been lacking sufficient resources to investigate many of the issues and the complaints that would have been put forward.

I support the amendment moved by the member for Gellibrand. I would like to comment on some of the points raised. Firstly, it took the Howard government almost seven years to commit to a policy of establishing a Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner since the November 1996 report by the Australian Law Reform Commission, when it first recommended a federal independent anticorruption commission. That is certainly a long time and a huge delay. Again, it is another failure by this government to take action that was desperately needed: the establishment of this commissioner. The amendment notes that it has taken the Howard government since June 2004 to bring this legislation before the parliament. Therefore, we have waited almost 10 long years to get this legislation here, and that is outrageous.

The amendment also notes that, despite the powers that the Australian Customs Service officers have regarding the use of weapons, including pistols and maritime deck-mounted guns; the powers of arrest and detention; the powers of search and seizure; the ability to conduct controlled operations; the responsibility for collection of large amounts of border related revenue; and the responsibility for storage of large amounts of contraband and goods such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, knives, guns and ammunition, the Howard government has exempted Customs from the oversight of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission by not specifically including them in the legislation. When considering the extent of the powers they have, they should be included in the legislation. The amendment notes that there are a range of Commonwealth agencies with such law enforcement style powers that should receive the oversight from this commission.

Another area of concern is the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The member for Gellibrand detailed many of the causes of concern. We have seen the department of immigration, under the Howard government’s maladministration, wrongly holding 26 Australians in immigration detention centres. That in itself should be sending the signal to bring bodies such as the department of immigration under the control of this new agency. It is very bad that the Howard government has not taken that action. Importantly, both Customs and DIMIA have had serious allegations of corruption levelled against them recently and that warrants investigation by a body of the type specified in this legislation.

Another measure in the bill is the government’s proposed system of adding and subtracting agencies other than the AFP and ACC by regulation. This would mean that the minister could effectively veto corruption investigations. I think it is outrageous that the minister would be able to disrupt these investigations on a whim. We need to know that there is a separation of powers, and here that is not able to happen. It seems outrageous and I am certainly opposed to the minister having a veto power, which could have undue influence over whether an investigation even occurs. How can the public be assured that there is going to be a proper and thorough investigation of issues within agencies if the minister can just decide to veto that investigation because it may not suit the government’s political objectives? I am certainly very much opposed to the government’s system of adding and subtracting these agencies

The other cognate bill, the Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006, repeals the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, abolishes the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal and incorporates the new regime into the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. This is a new, four-category system for complaints and investigations into conduct and practice issues. The bill replaces the current Australian Federal Police disciplinary regime. It provides a four-tiered system of police conduct: category 1, inappropriate conduct; category 2, minor misconduct or inappropriate conduct that reveals unsatisfactory behaviour; category 3, serious misconduct; and category 4, corrupt conduct. The bill complements the new Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commission. These changes are an improvement on current arrangements. The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal is now virtually defunct and many different agencies and groups have been calling for fairer and more transparent methods of dealing with professional standards issues.

The measures in this bill address some of the inadequacies in the Australian Federal Police complaints and disciplinary systems, but, again, it is a major concern that the government has taken almost 10 long years to act on these concerns that were first raised in the report by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal has been defunct for seven of those 10 long years, having heard no cases in that time.

As a former police officer, I am sure the majority of police do welcome thorough, fair and just analysis of their professional conduct. Police officers expect a system in which the public can make fair and just complaints and where police can defend themselves in a fair and just manner. Police accept the consequences of illegal or corrupt conduct. It comes down to accountability at all levels. That is vitally important. Often, mismanagement of the complaints handling process can cause grave damage to an officer’s professional ability and can cause widespread disillusionment in other police. On decisions such as dismissal or major redeployment, police must have a fair forum in which they can be heard.

Another issue I would like to touch on is how, in many instances, this government has taken to politicising the work of the AFP. As a former police officer, I find this particularly outrageous. I point to the very public humiliation by the Howard government of Commissioner Mick Keelty when he commented on the Madrid train bombing some years ago. At that time, Mr Keelty made a comment in a very professional manner as the AFP Commissioner on his views on the heightening of a country’s terrorist targets in light of such actions. What we saw then was the most disgraceful and unjustified attack by the Howard government on the police commissioner, who was making a very fair and just assessment of a situation—and a very correct assessment, in my opinion. I thought it was outrageous, particularly when the Minister for Foreign Affairs then accused the AFP Commissioner of ‘expressing a view which reflects a lot of the propaganda we have been getting from al-Qaeda’.

Of course these comments were politically motivated and they were offensive to the commissioner, the Federal Police, police generally and the Australian public. Here was someone making a fair and just professional assessment of a situation with all the knowledge that he had, and what did the Howard government do? They just smacked him down and told him to shut up. It was absolutely outrageous that they interfered in such a way and humiliated him when his comments were indeed very accurate and just. The foreign affairs minister’s behaviour in particular was quite disgusting, because Mick Keelty certainly does a very fine job as commissioner. When I was with the police, we had an expression that would apply to this: ‘The foreign minister’s never met an angry man.’ I dare say he probably has not, but I am sure Mick Keelty has and I am sure in his role as commissioner he was quite able to make a fair and just assessment of that situation.

I would like to touch yet again on the long history of these bills arriving in the parliament. There certainly has been a very lengthy delay, because the establishment of the new agency was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1996 and by the 2003 Fisher review. In 1996 the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the setting up of an independent national integrity and investigations commission which would have royal commission style powers. The report also recommended the four-step categorisation of corruption and misconduct, which has been outlined in the bill.

The review of professional standards in the Australian Federal Police—the Fisher review—was undertaken by Justice William Fisher and the report was tabled in the federal parliament in December 2003. For many years federal Labor has been committed to the establishment of an independent anti-corruption authority to oversee the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial processes. Labor believes that the Australian Crime Commission and the Federal Police should have appropriate independent complaints-handling procedures. It has certainly taken a long time to get to this day. The establishment of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is indeed a welcome, if not very late, action by the government. It has taken almost two full years for them to come good on their commitment to set up this independent national anti-corruption body.

I would also like to comment on the fact that the overwhelming weight of the law enforcement budget recently was directed towards overseas operations. But I also believe it is very important that the Howard government should be mindful of increasing the budget domestically as well, to make sure that we have adequate training and adequate resources for the AFP officers that are based here. However, I do welcome the establishment of this national authority, which is indeed very long overdue.

It is a good idea to protect public trust and confidence in Australia’s primary law enforcement agencies. That is why this should be extended to other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies as well, particularly ones such as Customs and DIMA, which I spoke of earlier. People have to have public trust and confidence in those agencies. We need to have the commissioner overseeing any other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies that may have those powers, so we can have that public trust and confidence. We do not want to see a situation where the minister is vetoing them left, right and centre because it may not happen to suit their political objectives at that time.

I conclude by saying that I certainly have the highest respect for the officers of the Australian Federal Police and I support their work. I believe that the establishment of this authority will help maintain their already high standards. It is welcome to have a body, and the majority of police would want a body, which will investigate those who are not doing the right thing. That is really important. It protects them as well. We live in a community where everyone seems to be attacking the police left, right and centre. As I mentioned earlier, the foreign minister seems quite willing and able to attack the Federal Police when it suits him. Personally, I am outraged by that. As I said, I think we should be supporting our police in the great work they do in the community. (Time expired)

See this speech in context