Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I endorse the comments of my colleagues the members for Chifley, Banks and Denison, who have spoken to these bills, and reiterate that Labor welcomes this legislation finally coming into the House. Three bills are being considered cognately, and the substantial amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has moved warrant consideration. There is absolutely no doubt that a rationalisation of law enforcement is long overdue in this country, and the government has finally managed to present us with this legislation. The opposition takes a very keen interest in both the substance and the efficacy of the legislation that comes into the parliament, and I think it is notable that the debate conducted in the House today goes to issues of substance and efficacy.

We note that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 establish the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission as a new agency under the Attorney-General’s portfolio, that there are specific powers for the investigation and reporting of corruption issues—and that is important—that new offences are created for not cooperating with the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and that the bills are limited in operational scope to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission but that any other Commonwealth law agency that has a law enforcement function could be included by being specified in regulations. I will come to that issue in a moment.

By establishing a new agency, the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, or ACLEI, to investigate corruption allegations against law enforcement agencies and officers and to conduct public inquiries under the control of an integrity commissioner, the government is bringing to the 21st century that which should have been done some time ago—but the measures are welcomed nevertheless. Such an agency was recommended as far back as 1996 in the Australian Law Reform Commission report No. 82 and also in 2003 by the Fisher review. The commissioner is given a broad range of powers in relation to investigating corruption but can only investigate law enforcement agencies. Additionally, it is worth while pointing out that article 6.9 of the 2004 ALP national platform states:

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.

Clearly, that is an important part of the legislation before us. We agree that the proposed regime is a fair improvement on the current regime. The current regime relies on the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate, and the AFP has had a conflict of interest in, effectively, investigating itself. As other members have mentioned, the bill is not yet optimal, particularly in the fact that it does not draw Customs and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs into its regime. We believe that deficiency needs to be considered by the government. It is the case that a broader range of agencies can potentially be added or delisted from the regime, and that is something we will take some interest in as this legislation unfolds and as the policy issues that need to be considered in relation to the legislation continues.

The Law Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006the other bill to be considered in this cognate debate—repeals the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, establishes in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 a new four-category system for complaints and own-motion investigations into conduct and practice issues, and amends a range of acts as a consequence. It incorporates a provision relating to alcohol screening tests into the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. It amends the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to make new provisions for suspension, termination and resignation from AFP employment. This legislation provides improvements in the arrangements. The Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal has pretty much stopped working; it certainly has not heard any cases for the past seven years. Importantly, this new regime is an integral part of a broader anticorruption regime which includes ACLEI, so, along with our amendments, Labor believe the bill should be supported.

I note that the bill provides minimal protection for whistleblowers by making an offence of victimisation under proposed section 40YA, part VA, division 3. A provision relating to the stripping of superannuation from those found guilty of corruption offences is deleted from the bill. We believe some additional issues arise out of this which should be considered, including how complaints can be referred against AFP local police contingents in external territories. That is a technical issue but clearly an important one given that there are a number of the AFP local police contingents now operating in external territories. Also, under clause 40TC, which relates to ordered training and development action, a provision ought to be considered to protect people from pecuniary loss. A number of other technical matters are contained in the amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has moved.

One of the things that is clear is that Labor will use the Senate committee process to examine the bill closely in an endeavour to secure necessary amendments. But I have to say in relation to that particular matter that the decision in the last 24 hours by the government to effectively seek to take control of the Senate raises some very legitimate questions about whether or not we will be able to properly scrutinise this legislation, or any other legislation which has such far-reaching consequences, when it comes through the House.

I draw your attention to the chain of events that have led from the Prime Minister, upon taking control of the Senate and announcing that the approach that the government will take will be humble—I think that was one of the words that was used—to the situation that we are faced with this morning, when we learn that in fact it is the government’s intention in the Senate that it will determine who heads the committees. The government will effectively control the agenda of Senate committees, including whether or not witnesses will be called and heard.

When we are considering a bill about improving the governance, accountability and efficiency of the purview of police agencies in the Commonwealth, a far more important but related issue is whether or not the parliament can continue to exercise its proper oversight duties in relation to these bodies and any others, including legislation. That is what this is all about at this point in time. We need to be very aware that, since taking control of the Senate, the government has, amongst other things, unilaterally changed the allocation of questions and awarded itself two extra questions each day at the expense of non-government senators, cut off debate and prevented full and open debate in the Senate on a number of really important bills that people in the gallery who are listening to me speaking would know are important and go to the very heart of their lives and what goes on in their communities—the Telstra bill, Work Choices, Welfare to Work, voluntary student unionism. Those are some of the bills that were subject to much less scrutiny.

The guillotine was imposed on the debate concerning $30 billion of taxpayers’ assets that are tied up in Telstra, leaving no opportunity for the Senate to do what the people of Australia expect it to do: hold the government to account. The government unilaterally altered the sitting hours in the week of the Telstra debate; it did not consult with other parties—the Labor Party, the Greens or the Democrats—in the Senate. Additionally, the Howard government has unilaterally pushed Senator Fielding down the senators list so that Senator Joyce could jump into his place. The Family First senator did not get to speak on that legislation in the Senate. That is a disgraceful abuse of process.

Additionally, debate has been gagged. People may remember that, on 13 October, when we were considering the antiterror legislation that was coming through the House, Senator Hill, the then government leader in the Senate, put a motion for the inquiry into the antiterror legislation after 4.30 pm on Thursday, as no vote could be held at this time. This would have effectively meant a one-day inquiry into the legislation. That is what the government was trying to do at that time.

Some ministers have shown a contempt for Senate abuses by not showing up to portfolio estimates, either sending parliamentary secretaries or junior ministers. Senators Kemp and Colbeck replaced Senator Ian Campbell at Environment and Heritage and Senator Sandy Macdonald replaced Senator Hill at Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Debate was gagged on 3 November in a debate about hours and routine and business, in the Senate again. Debate was gagged on 8 November in a debate over Labor’s proposed amendments to the references to the Work Choice inquiries. The legislation committee inquiring into the radioactive waste bill inquiry did not travel to the Northern Territory for local input. It did not even go to the very place where the legislation was likely to have its impact. Again, an antiterror bill and two welfare bills were guillotined and the debate was gagged on 5 December.

While I am reciting what has actually gone on in the Senate and noting the decline in the openness, accountability and thoroughness with which all elected senators can perform their tasks in the Senate, who could forget when Senator McGauran gave the finger to non-government senators during a vote count. I have not been in the parliament that long, but I must say that democracy dropped down a level of respect when Senator McGauran reacted in that way.

Additionally, there has been a considerable abuse of question time in the Senate. But now, more importantly, we see a final step taken by the government in seeking to reduce the capacity that the parliament has to consider bills and their effects clearly, including bills such as the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills.

I come into the parliament as the member for Kingsford Smith. I want to reiterate the comments of my colleagues, the member for Banks and the member for Dennison in particular, and note that there is a lost opportunity in this legislation in that we do not have a single oversight body that can deal with law enforcement, and to particularly note the fact that Customs and DIMA have not been brought directly within the purview of the legislation. The electorate that I represent has a significant port facility. Some of the problems and issues that we have seen in relation to Customs, and some of the significant difficulties—both security difficulties and difficulties and issues that relate to corruption itself—are really on the mind of my constituents; and, as I represent them, on my mind as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you may recall a report into the Customs IT system. That was the system that almost stopped the nation’s ports. The report showed that the new system had not expedited sea cargo by any measure, had not delivered streamlined and simplified dealings with Customs, had not delivered on improved security via cargo profiling and had not delivered any cost efficiencies, despite Senator Ellison promising the parliament that ‘these will be the greatest reforms to occur to the Australian Customs Service since Federation.’ The report found that ‘almost immediately’ the system ‘caused disruption to the nation’s ports’ and that Customs continued to introduce changes to the software up to 6 October, only one week prior to the go-live date.

If we had the opportunity to properly scrutinise the performance of ministers and the way in which legislation rolls through this parliament then we would be able to ask more questions about this, but in the future we will not be able to do that. But more importantly, I think, is the prospect that on the ports and the wharves there are opportunities and environments which place both security issues and corruption issues into the front field. To that extent, the fact that this legislation does not as a matter of course provide for or include Customs is an oversight.

I will conclude my remarks. There is no question that this legislation is needed. Additionally, there is no question that the issues that we have brought into the parliament are issues of efficiency, of efficacy and particularly of whether or not Customs and AUSTRAC, which are clearly law enforcement agencies, ought to be included in this legislation rather than being simply dependent on the minister’s listing for regulation. So they are important issues that have been raised. We will support the bill, awaiting and inviting the government to consider the amendment that has been moved.

See this speech in context