Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

During my contribution to the debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills, I will turn to some of the issues highlighted by the member for Kingsford Smith in his contribution to this debate. Like other members on this side of the parliament, we are very concerned about the way this government has eroded the democratic process within Australia and within this parliament.

This legislation seeks to establish the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and a new agency under the Attorney-General’s portfolio, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. It specifies a power for the investigation and reporting of corruption issues. It creates new offences for not cooperating with the Integrity Commissioner. It is limited in operational scope to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission—the former National Crime Authority. However, any other Commonwealth government agency that has a law enforcement function could be included by being specified in regulation. The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006, which we are discussing today, allows the Integrity Commissioner access to certain powers under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914 and various other acts. It extends the scope of the Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1997 to allow the ACLEI to cooperate with other organisations.

Whilst we on this side are supporting this bill, it does have some flaws. We are quite concerned about the omissions in this legislation and I think that there are a few points that I need to make in relation to this legislation. As I have already stated, it establishes the Office of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner, and we on this side of the parliament welcome that development. But it is also worth noting just how long it has taken the government to develop this legislation: it has taken it almost two years to come good on the commitment to set up an independent national anticorruption body.

You might ask why this is necessary. I think members would be aware that most states have similar bodies, and it is very important that we can ensure the integrity of our Commonwealth law enforcement bodies. It should be noted—and I say without reservation—that the majority of law enforcement officers within the Commonwealth jurisdiction are very honourable, hardworking and dedicated people. But, unfortunately, at times there are some people who do not operate at the same level of integrity. So this is needed. It is an independent national anticorruption body and, as such, members should all get behind it.

But I do see it as a bit of a missed opportunity. This government had the opportunity to set up a body that would provide that oversight for all law enforcement bodies. As previous speakers on this side have mentioned, it has ignored DIMA and AUSTRAC and the Australian Customs Service. Even the Australian Taxation Office could be looked at in the context of this legislation. But, unfortunately, the government has not chosen to do this. There are still a number of minor flaws in this bill which add to the trend that this government has of putting before the parliament sloppy legislation, legislation that is half finished.

I think this links in to the arrogance that has developed within the coalition ranks since it has had control of both houses of parliament. It thinks it can just throw legislation into the House without going through the proper processes. It is a government that does not feel it is really accountable to anyone. It is a law unto itself and the only thing that can be guaranteed is that this government will push anything through this House if it thinks that it will benefit it. It took two years to develop the legislation and at the end of two years we have sloppy legislation that has not been detailed properly. I think that on that account the government stands condemned.

The bill before us today clearly does not take into account the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006. As a consequence, the consequential amendment bill is littered with redundant references. It is clear from the quality of the legislation and the lack of the timely response to the recommendation that the Attorney-General takes for granted that any piece of legislation he puts before the House will be successful. It is a very lazy cavalier approach to this parliament and to developing legislation of a quality that the Australian people should expect. The opposition will support this bill, but we do have a number of concerns. The shadow minister has put it to the House that we will be moving amendments that are vitally important to bring the Customs Service, AUSTRAC, justice portfolios and other law enforcement agencies under this legislation.

The Lateline program of 18 September last year highlighted the need for this type of legislation. However, it needs to be broader than the legislation before us today. The Lateline presentation was a special report on the trade in drugs, guns and people over the Torres Strait, between Papua New Guinea and Australia. As we all know, there have been increased tensions between Australia and New Zealand over these matters. However, it is a trade that has been taking place for a very long time and one that this government has not moved to stop. In this Lateline report, it was alleged that corrupt officials were making this trade even easier. I know that the member for Chifley spoke at some length about illegal fishing, the failure of the government to stop that practice and the failure of the government to stop many of the illegal activities that take place in the northern part of Australia.

This Lateline report highlighted the need for the government to address this issue. Very important information was put forward in that program—information that makes it so much more important for us to include in this legislation Customs and other areas. One of the contributors said:

Sometimes the drug dealers give drugs and buy off the Customs guys.

The question was asked:

So are Australian officials corrupt?

The answer:

Yes ... especially Immigration.

Where in this legislation is Immigration covered? The answer is that it is not. Because it is not covered, we have flawed legislation before us here in the parliament today. As I have already highlighted, this is sloppy legislation put to us by a very lazy Attorney-General who thinks he can serve anything up to this parliament, say what he likes and it will get through because he has the numbers in the House and in the Senate.

Before going back to the Lateline program, I would like to make a couple of comments on the Senate and the moves that this government has taken to interfere with the democratic process not only in the Senate but here in this parliament. This week, this House has been subject to a number of gag motions. I have been prevented from speaking on two or three pieces of legislation in this parliament because this government has rammed legislation through the parliament. This is not a government that allows for proper debate, discussion, investigation and amendments to legislation. I have been prevented from speaking on these pieces of legislation this week, as have many other members on this side of the House. We believe that legislation should have proper scrutiny, and I would argue very strongly and passionately that this government is preventing that. By preventing proper scrutiny the government is doing a disservice to the Australian people. The Australian people deserve better than that. They deserve legislation that has been properly debated and scrutinised by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We have noticed a very big change in this parliament since the government gained control of the Senate. No longer do we sit late on the night before parliament rises. My prediction is that we will probably get out of parliament at the normal time on Thursday night because the government has control of the Senate. Previously when the government rammed things through the House, things were properly scrutinised in the Senate because the government did not have the numbers then. Now the government has the numbers in the Senate, everything will be rammed through the Senate without proper scrutiny in the same way it has been rammed through this parliament since the Howard government came to power. Today we have heard the news that the government will rationalise the Senate committees by reducing their numbers, once again decreasing the capacity of senators to properly examine legislation. It is all about the government’s removing itself from accountability. It is all about a lack of scrutiny. It is all about ramming everything through. It is all about not allowing proper democratic processes in this parliament.

The member for Kingsford Smith highlighted some of the legislation that this government had gagged debate on—very vital legislation to the people of Australia. The Telstra debate, the Welfare to Work legislation and the Work Choices legislation—I see the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is at the table—were gagged. We were not allowed to discuss vital legislation that changed the shape of Australia. The antiterrorism legislation, once again, was gagged. Under this government, our democracy has been diminished and Australians are being persecuted because of this government’s approach to governing our country. I urge the government to rethink its plans for the Senate, because I see it as a further abuse of our parliamentary system in Australia. It is the action of a very arrogant government that really does not want to be accountable to the Australian people in a way that it should be.

The Lateline report I was examining a moment ago highlights a number of areas where there are deficiencies in policing the waters north of Australia. In that particular interview, it was stated that two local economies north of Australia are fishing and smuggling; that it was all about bringing guns, drugs and people in. The following fact was also highlighted:

Part of the problem is in the Australian side. The Australian law enforcement agencies are corrupt. Federal Police, Customs, and Australian Immigration officers are corrupt. They are part of the network.

Today we are putting in place legislation that will look at part of the problem, and I suspect the part of the problem that is most accountable now—that is, the Australian Federal Police—but it ignores Customs and DIMA. I really do not think that DIMA should escape the oversight of this legislation when we look at some of the examples that have been before the parliament of the 26 Australians held in immigration detention. I do not need to go into the plight of Cornelia Rau today as all members are aware of the activities that have happened where DIMA have not acted in the way that one would expect them to act. I would argue that there has been an abuse of their law enforcement powers and that they should receive the same sort of oversight that we are placing on agencies that come under this legislation.

I argue very strongly that, unless the government includes these other departments and agencies, this legislation is flawed, and it is very much a missed opportunity. I find it extremely disappointing that this government is prepared to cover two agencies—the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission—when there are a number of other agencies that should come under this legislation. While I support this legislation, I condemn the government for its sloppy and very untimely approach to developing this legislation. It has been very remiss in omitting those agencies that I have highlighted throughout my contribution to this debate. I have provided supporting evidence from the Lateline show of 18 April that really supports the inclusion of those agencies to be covered by this legislation.

I hope that when this legislation reaches the Senate it will be scrutinised properly. As I have already highlighted, this government is not about proper scrutiny; it is about reducing the ability of the Senate to scrutinise legislation in the way that it should be scrutinised. I urge the government to reconsider its proposal to reduce the number of Senate committees and the ability of the Senate to do its job—that is, to review legislation.

See this speech in context