Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

The three bills before us, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills, are principally designed to create the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner. That is an important position, and the Labor Party welcomes the creation of that office. It has been Labor policy for some time; we have been calling for the creation of that position for some time. In fact, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the establishment of a body such as this back in 1996 in its report of November of that year. It took the Liberal government the best part of two years before they finally adopted that recommendation of the Law Reform Commission. In June 2004, which is some eight years later, the Liberal government finally got around to adopting that recommendation.

If memory serves me correctly, I think it was the former Labor Attorney-General Michael Lavarch who asked the Law Reform Commission to look at these matters. I should reflect that Michael Lavarch was an outstanding Attorney-General who, in a number of respects, brought the administration of law in Australia into a modern contemporary frame. It is a pity that subsequent Attorneys-General have not had either his ability or his integrity. That is my view, and I am sure the view of many people in the legal fraternity who have watched the situation.

In any event, after about eight years the Liberal government finally decided that this was a good idea, that the Law Reform Commission had it right in November 1996, and adopted the policy of establishing the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commission. It has taken this government two years since then to have a bill materialise in this parliament, and when you reflect on the number of pieces of legislation in the law enforcement and antiterrorism areas that this government has introduced—in some cases with little or no debate—it is hard to understand why it relegated such an important measure to such a low priority. The fact that it has taken two years for this government after adopting this policy to produce a bill indicates the lack of interest it has in ensuring proper transparency and accountability.

I want to make it clear at the outset that I think Australia’s police and law enforcement bodies are, with a few exceptions, made up of very decent professional people who are dedicated to the task at hand and perform an excellent job. We see that day in and day out and, whether as legislators or as citizens, we know that if we are in difficulty it is the law enforcement agency people of Australia we turn to and they respond with great dedication and within the limits of the resources available to them.

That said, it has to be acknowledged that it is a fact of history that some people in those roles will do the wrong thing from time to time. I do not want to overplay that because, if we are going to be frank about it, there are a few politicians and ex-politicians that have done the wrong thing and have found themselves on the wrong end of a court case. Indeed, there are a few politicians who have found themselves in jail as a result of things that they have done as members of parliament or in holding office in state or federal legislatures. So I do not want to pretend or paint a picture in any way that the law enforcement agencies more than any other group in our community in positions of trust behave in a way that might be seen as improper or unlawful. The fact is that the community rightly demands that there be accountability and transparency for those who hold high office and those who hold positions of trust, and the law enforcement bodies fall into that category.

Some years ago, states around Australia, confronted with the reality of illegal and improper activity by some of the law enforcement bodies, established various commissions or committees to oversight the police bodies throughout the country. It has taken some years for the Commonwealth to recognise the need for a similar body to provide for greater accountability and transparency in the operations of our law enforcement agencies.

One of the great tragedies of this bill, though, is its narrow scope. The bill provides for an Integrity Commissioner but then ties the Integrity Commissioner’s hands behind his back. The bill allows the Integrity Commissioner to overview the operations of the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. I suspect that, of all the law enforcement agencies under the Commonwealth’s control, those are the two where there are fewer problems than anywhere else. That is not to say that there will not be issues from time to time or that there are not cases that warrant investigation, but the simple fact is that the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission have a very good reputation here in Australia and, indeed, abroad for their professionalism and the quality of the work they do. The AFP have been called on to assist neighbouring countries build their police services and security services. We see them operating in the Solomons and in Dili. They are well regarded around the world when they have been on international deployments as part of UN contingents. So having those two agencies, and only those two agencies, subject to the integrity commission is the government’s way of establishing the Clayton’s commission—that is the integrity commission you have without really having an integrity commission.

This is the integrity commission that is not going to be able to do the job it needs to, which is to supervise and oversee all of the law enforcement agencies for which the Commonwealth is responsible. Why is it, for example, that the Australian Taxation Office is not subject to an external integrity commission oversight? Why is the Australian Customs Service not subject to that oversight? Why is the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not subject to that oversight? My friend and colleague Senator Ludwig in the Senate and my colleague here in the House of Representatives Nicola Roxon made the observation that the performance of the department of immigration has been so appalling that it can rightly be described as a ‘chamber of horrors that masquerades as a department of state’. The simple fact is that the immigration department’s performance in a raft of areas, not just over a short period of time but time and again over the last decade, has been appalling.

I just cite a couple of examples to recall some of the problems that we have witnessed in the maladministration of that department. There is the wrongful detention of no fewer than 26 Australian citizens. This is a department that has deported people who are Australians. They are having enough trouble figuring out whether you are an Australian citizen before they deport you, let alone whether you are a fit and proper person. This is the same department that has allowed five detainees to be transported locked up in the back of a van for five hours without food, without water, without toilet facilities and without a rest break. It is the same department that exports women and children to an island quarry hole on Nauru. It is the same department that allowed even mothers in the act of labour to be placed under guard and refused the right of family members to take photographs of the newborn. This is a department that is out of control, this is a department that has been the subject of ongoing criticism in this parliament and in public, yet the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission being created through this bill will not be given the power to deal with the operations of the immigration department and the enforcement of law which it undertakes. It is a glaring anomaly. Why does the minister under this bill have a roving discretion to decide which agencies should be investigated and which should not? These law enforcement agencies that are the responsibility of the Commonwealth should all be subject to the same integrity review process and oversight. They are not. Everyone who is involved in a law enforcement agency and in the administration of them in Australia knows that is a glaring anomaly.

In the inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, made the following observation about the problem that this gap presented:

There is a gap here—and I do not want to name agencies—if you look at the powers, such as access to search warrants, access to the use of firearms and access to detention.

The implication was that you can identify those agencies that should be subject of an Integrity Commissioner. Of course, Mick Keelty is right. It is not just the Federal Police who are in a position where they deal with warrants, have access to firearms or have access to detention. Other agencies do and they should be subject in this act to those provisions. Indeed, the Senate committee has recommended that these agencies should be brought under the purview of the Integrity Commissioner by legislative means. It should be here in the bill before us. The government, before this bill is dealt with in the Senate, should change at least that aspect of the bill to make sure that its coverage is more complete. All of the law enforcement agencies responsible to the Commonwealth should be subject to the purview of this body.

I mentioned the Senate committee inquiry on this and the recommendations that it made. I cannot let the events of the last 24 hours go by without making the observation that we may not see statements from people like the police commissioner to Senate inquiries in the future or, indeed, the sorts of recommendations that were made here. Since this government has had control of the Senate from the middle of last year as a result of the last election, it has done everything it can at every stage to muzzle the Senate and to muzzle the parliamentary process. I think the executive—the cabinet, the ministers in this government—have come to the view that the parliament is really just a bit of a nuisance, an obstacle, an impediment and a frustration that has to be endured but entertained as little as possible.

Mr Deputy Speaker, have a look at this debate. Today we have seen just one member of the government stand to support the bill. There have been about eight members of the Labor Party speak on this bill. We on this side of the parliament actually think that the parliamentary process is important. We also happen to think that this legislation is important. We think that accountability and transparency are important. These are but a trifle to members of the cabinet. They think transparency and accountability are simply an impediment to their political goals. They think the parliament is an impediment to the program they want to put through. You see that carried out here today as the gag has been applied. You see it here today in this House as government members do not even entertain the idea that they should engage in the debate in the parliament, because the parliament is largely irrelevant as far as this government is concerned.

In the Senate, where there has been scrutiny, you have seen since the middle of last year this government use its numbers as brutally as it thinks it can to ensure that debate in the Senate is also reduced. It causes me great concern. I remember well the situation at the end of last year when the ASIO bill was presented to the Senate. After 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon, the government, thinking they were very clever, dropped a motion on the table to have what amounted to a one-day Senate hearing into those quite contentious and far-reaching provisions of the ASIO bill. They thought it was clever, because the motion could not be amended after 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon, and they basically issued an ultimatum to the Labor Party and all other parties in the Senate: vote for a one-day hearing or you will get none at all.

It is a matter of record that we protested fiercely inside and outside the parliament, and the government, thankfully, under the pressure of public opinion, backed off from that one-day hearing. We ended up with a one-week hearing—not a lot better, I have to say. It was a one-week hearing that in other circumstances, before the Liberal Party had control of the Senate, would have been more like a three- or four-month hearing with evidence taken around the country. But, no, the government wanted to have a one-day hearing and it shifted to a five-day hearing under pressure.

That is an unacceptable approach to legislative debate in this parliament. That is not how you get good laws. That is how legislators make mistakes. They make mistakes when you have arrogant, out-of-touch ministers who think that the parliamentary process is simply an impediment on the road to their desired outcome and when they are so arrogant that they think that all of the knowledge and all of the answers reside within the ministerial office and the staffers who populate the advisers benches. They do not. We get it wrong in this parliament sometimes even after we have had extensive debate, but I tell you what: we get it wrong a hell of a lot more when we have half-a-dozen ministers as the only people involved in the decision-making process. That is where this government is heading.

They have gagged debate on serious matters in this House of Representatives this week. They are now in the process, announced in the last 24 hours, of closing down about a third of the Senate’s committees. One of the things that the people of Australia know is that, irrespective of who the government of the land has been, when important matters are before the parliament, invariably there will be a Senate inquiry that allows for full and public involvement—that is, people can make submissions and the media can report fully on what is going on. This government is trying to close that down.

There has been committee consideration of the legislation before us and they have made recommendations that I hope this government take on board. The Labor Party have moved an amendment, which I hope this government takes on board. Foremost should be an expansion of the scope that the Integrity Commissioner has. Those other Commonwealth law enforcement agencies should be subject to oversight by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, not just the AFP and the Crime Commission. Those other law enforcement agencies should also be dealt with here.

This is an important bill and it is a step in the right direction. We welcome it as a step in the right direction, but it falls short of the mark that I think the Australian people expect. It falls short of the mark that those involved in the law enforcement agencies expect. The words of Mick Keelty that I spoke about before should be heeded by the government, the advice of the Senate committee should also be heeded by the government and the amendment moved by Labor should be adopted by the government so that we can end up with a bill that is not just a step in the right direction but a significant advance on where we are at the moment.

See this speech in context