Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are having a cognate debate 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. I want to say a few things about this legislation. In particular, I was pleased to follow the contribution by my colleague the honourable member for Blaxland. I totally endorse his remarks. In particular, why wouldn’t you want to have the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs under the purview of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner when 26 of our fellow Australian citizens—I repeat: 26 of our fellow Australian citizens—have been illegally and unlawfully detained in detention centres? It is an absolute disgrace, yet we are being asked to have confidence in the department of immigration.

The shadow Attorney-General has moved a second reading amendment and has foreshadowed detailed amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill. The second reading amendment highlights the fact that the recommendation for the establishment of a law enforcement integrity commissioner first arose in November 1996 in report No. 82 of the Australian Law Reform Commission. In implementing a significant change—and I acknowledge that this is a significant change—it is appropriate for governments to be cautious in framing the legislation and ensuring that they have got it right. But I am sure you would not disagree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this has taken almost 10 years. November this year would be the 10th anniversary of this recommendation. Caution, yes, but this is legislating at a snail’s pace. In fact, maybe the Leader of the House would want me to withdraw that as a reflection on snails—and if I have so reflected, I apologise and I withdraw. But I do not understand, as the honourable member for Blaxland has pointed out, why, when our law enforcement agencies have been under so much stress from heightened activity due to the threat of terrorism, it has taken 10 long years for this bill to come to fruition.

This bill is welcome and we are actually supporting it. I think our amendments will strengthen the bill and I will be most interested to see whether or not the Attorney-General—or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is at the table—will be embracing our second reading amendment and, in particular, our detailed amendments. Labor would like to see the reporting regime opened up and subjected to judicial review. We would also like to see agencies such as AUSTRAC, Customs and, as I have mentioned, the department of immigration covered by the Integrity Commissioner. This bill would be greatly enhanced if those agencies came under its purview. I think that would give comfort to citizens that there are remedial steps that they can take. The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner would be charged with dealing with corruption, and in 2004 the platform of the Australian Labor Party had this to say:

Labor supports the establishment of independent anti-corruption authorities to oversee the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial processes. Labor will ensure that the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police have appropriate independent complaints handling procedures.

I am very pleased with it, and it is for that reason that the opposition is supporting these measures.

I am focused on the Australian Federal Police, because on Monday I raised a privileges matter concerning tampering with mail. I understand that Australia Post has its own internal security, but I specifically wrote to the Australian Federal Police because I had no confidence in having an impartial examination of the serious issues that I had raised—that is, between 3,000 to 5,000 mail items were shredded. Unfortunately, the security bin holding my material has now been removed. Another federal member is in the same boat as I am—of having their mail tampered with—not by the workers at Australia Post Nepean centre but by the management.

This is why I was very keen to see the Australian Federal Police look at what I believe is a climate of corruption in the New South Wales state branch of Australia Post—but they did not. I suppose I have cause to write to the Ombudsman. I have lodged my complaint with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, but I have not heard from him. I must say that this is uncharacteristic. I have the greatest admiration for Commissioner Keelty. I think he has done a great job, and I also believe that he presides over a very effective and efficient Australian Federal Police force. The officers of the Australian Federal Police have my admiration and my total support.

Unfortunately, many members of the Australian Federal Police are tied up on overseas assignments, where they are doing a great job. The 2004-05 annual report states that 258 officers are stationed at overseas posts; at least a further 147 are on peacekeeping duties overseas; 1,205 Protective Service officers are involved in guarding duties, not investigative services; 26 are on secondment to other agencies—I would be very happy if that were 27 not 26, so that we had one on secondment to Australia Post; 1,291 are unsworn; 608 are appropriately on ACT local policing duties; and 20 are on local policing duties in other Australian territories.

We have talked many times in this House about the Australian defence forces being at perhaps their highest tempo of operation since the Vietnam War. I think that is a true statement. I also think it is true of the Australian Federal Police. In recent times they have been at an exceptional level of operation and are deeply committed all over the world to duties as they have been announced by the Australian government. This is putting a lot of pressure on the Australian Federal Police. Perhaps I should take a more charitable view of the Australian Federal Police not investigating what happened at the Nepean delivery centre and what I understand to be a climate of corruption operating within the New South Wales Australia Post operations at management level—and I want to stress ‘at management level’.

Why would we argue, for example, to have Customs involved in this? I have spoken a number of times about what is happening on our northern borders. It is a matter of record that last year 13,000 foreign fishing vessels were sighted in either our coastal waters or our economic zone. Now, 13,000 is a lot of fishing vessels, along with 78,000 illegal foreign fishermen, in our waters. Of the 13,000 boats, only 400 were apprehended. It is a matter of record that some of those boats were landing on our shores.

I have raised the quarantine issues associated with that. We are at grave risk of foot-and-mouth disease entering this country by illegal foreign fishermen landing on our coast. The most probable way that avian flu will enter this country is through illegal fishermen. And, of course, there are marine pests. We already know that it cost $3 billion to eradicate the black striped mussel from Darwin Harbour. If it hit our pearling industry, it would wipe it out, which is the last in the wild pearling industry. It would be not only a huge economic loss to us but also a tragedy for the world.

The point I want to make is that no-one can tell us whether drugs are coming in on these boats. We cannot say whether drugs are coming in on these boats. We do not know whether weapons are coming in on these boats. We do not know whether there are persons, other than refugees, seeking to enter Australia by landing on our coast. This is a serious issue. It is not confined just to one small spot on the Western Australian coast, it is not confined to the coast of the Northern Territory, it is not confined to Queensland—it is across our northern waters. It is a very serious issue.

I would never argue that this scandal, in my view, is an issue of corruption within Customs or an issue of corruption within Coastwatch or an issue of corruption within the Federal Police. I would not make that argument. But when you have 78,000 illegal fishermen in our northern waters and we are unable to respond, then certainly some ministers should stand up before the dispatch box and accept responsibility. I also say to those agencies that they are derelict in their duty by not recommending more strongly to the government appropriate measures that would stop this.

This country was thrown into utter turmoil by a couple of thousand illegal refugees wanting to land in Australia. We turned our immigration laws upside down. We took extraordinary action on border protection, but in any one year the numbers were relatively modest, certainly compared to other countries. For example, in the UK up to 100,000 people would seek refugee status. But here I am talking about genuine people, because they are poor fishermen, trying to earn a livelihood, being financed by illegal cartels operating in Indonesia and some other countries. I have some sympathy for the fishermen but these 78,000 illegal foreign fishermen are, at will, being allowed to enter our coast and we are doing absolutely nothing about it. I am sorry; that is not true. The government are proposing to lift the number of vessels apprehended by 4.62 per cent. ‘In the case of 78,000 illegal fishermen, we hope to apprehend 3,700.’ This is seen by the government as an adequate response.

I think it is a totally inadequate response. It is another example of the government refusing to protect Australian sovereignty. We know what you are doing on the immigration bill, we know who you are appeasing on the immigration bill, but you will not stand up and protect our sovereignty and our borders. The government knows and the agencies know that these illegal fishermen are landing on our coast. Why shouldn’t we have Customs under the purview of this Integrity Commissioner? I think we should. In relation to the scandal that is operating on our northern borders, I certainly hope that we do not have to wait another 10 years to see some action.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman will have an additional role in relation to the Australian Federal Police. We will still see complaints made to the Ombudsman, but his title will be changed, I think, to the Law Enforcement Ombudsman. But not all complaints will be handled by the Ombudsman. The so-called serious corruption complaints will be handled by the new statutory body that we are establishing in these bills.

To sum up, there is still a lot to be done in the law enforcement area. I regret to say—and, again, I apologise if I am offending snails—it has taken a decade, with a snail’s pace tackling of these important issues. Labor support the legislation and welcome it. We think it is long overdue, but we still welcome it. We have a second reading amendment—which I am sure, if you had your druthers, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be supporting—and some in detail amendments that strengthen the bill.

See this speech in context