Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you very much for the call and I thank the members who have contributed in the debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and cognate bills—the members for Gellibrand, Fisher, Werriwa, Richmond, Denison, Kingsford Smith, Shortland, Chifley, Blaxland, Banks and Brisbane. It has certainly been a matter of quite considerable contribution and I thank all the members. In the time available, I may not be able to deal with all of the points made, but I will try to deal with the substantial issues.

It has been suggested, during the discussion and in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand, that there has been some delay in the implementation of this matter. The first point I should make is that this has not been a response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report; it is a new initiative that is being brought forward in the absence of evidence of serious corruption in Australian law enforcement. The matters referred to by the opposition either are not relevant to corruption or are based upon media reports that have not raised issues but matters that have been the subject of separate investigation. Our view is that it is entirely appropriate that in these circumstances the legislation that has been brought forward should be properly and fully developed with full and careful consideration.

The member for Gellibrand in her comments pressed these matters by seeking in her amendment to add new agencies to the proposed jurisdiction of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission by seeking to extend its jurisdiction. In our view, that would involve considerable delay. Extension by regulation rather than in the legislation itself, in our view, would be a more efficient approach and repeal of such extended jurisdiction by regulation to avoid a particular investigation, even if it were technically possible, would not be politically feasible.

Mention was made by the member for Richmond of the need for appeal against dismissal. In this matter, the government has taken account of questions raised as to whether amended section 69A of the AFP Act would prevent review by the Industrial Relations Commission of dismissals under section 28 of that act for misconduct. The government will be proposing an amendment to clarify that section 69A does not affect appeals against dismissals under section 28.

Some matters were raised by the honourable member for Gellibrand, as I have mentioned, who named Customs, DIMA, ASIC and other agencies that should be covered. Our view is that the role of the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner is to deal principally with law enforcement functions. The functions of regulatory agencies which may in some similar respects deal with law enforcement issues do not necessarily mean they should be covered in a body of this sort. The functions of regulatory agencies are in many cases more narrowly focused and include roles that are different from those of law enforcement agencies. In our view, other considerations should be taken into account in dealing with these issues. This could be done on a case-by-case basis, as the need is identified and after due consideration of the relationship between law enforcement and non law enforcement functions within each agency.

The issues listed in the opposition’s amendment in relation to the Australian Customs Service demonstrate the complexities of addressing the mixed functions of agencies, other than the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, in extending jurisdiction to the Integrity Commissioner. Given the complex issues that are involved, we consider the incremental approach that we foreshadowed will allow for a much more adequate consideration of the particular issues relevant to each agency.

The member for Gellibrand also, as I understand it, asked why a new parliamentary committee is required to oversight this body and I think the member for Werriwa raised the same issue. The Senate committee recommended that the existing Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission could oversight it. The government accepts that there is some potential overlap with the area of responsibility of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. However, the functions for the proposed Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission are being focused not on the law enforcement agencies, over which the Integrity Commissioner has jurisdiction, but on the work of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission, particularly on its use of the special coercive powers which are given to it by this bill. To combine these functions would merely tend to create confusion between the roles of the two different committees in relation to the Australian Crime Commission and its role on other agencies. It should be kept in mind that the Australian Crime Commission, even at the outset, will only amount to a small proportion of the persons within the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction.

With reference to the argument made by the member for Denison for a law enforcement parliamentary joint committee, the government remains unconvinced that such a joint committee with jurisdiction over Commonwealth law enforcement officers is necessary. The law enforcement functions of the Commonwealth extend to a large range of Commonwealth agencies. A committee with general oversight of Commonwealth law enforcement would need to look into activities of all the agencies, possibly interfering with areas of responsibility of a range of other committees of the parliament.

The member for Werriwa raised some issues about the definition of ‘serious corruption’ being too wide because it has the potential for imprisonment of more than 12 months. The government does not wish to limit the Integrity Commissioner to any particular level of corruption, because this would potentially allow borderline cases to be withheld from the commissioner inappropriately. The bill expressly provides that the Integrity Commissioner should focus on serious and systemic corruption. The bill provides for flexibility for the Integrity Commissioner to leave minor issues to law enforcement agencies for internal investigation. The definition of ‘corrupt conduct’ is broad and appropriately so. It corresponds to the definition already used in the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act and the Australian Federal Police Act in provisions for loss of superannuation benefits.

The member for Banks asked why resources should be devoted to this issue if there were no problem. The government agree that we should be cautious about devoting resources to what may not be an extensive problem in our law enforcement agencies, but this is essentially the approach that the government has adopted and will continue to adopt—that is, one of caution. The government are conscious of the need to avoid damage to the morale of law enforcement officers by an excessively zealous approach, but we have tried to achieve a balance by ensuring that people know there is an appropriate framework for these matters to be dealt with.

The member for Chifley would like to see the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act applied to reports and decisions under the bill. The work of the agency will be in the nature of police investigations. Giving reasons for decisions would be quite inappropriate in these circumstances and it would open an avenue for collateral attack of investigations.

In trying to progress the bill’s consideration, I will withhold further comments. There will be some government amendments, in part to improve the bill but also in part to reflect the Senate committee’s consideration. I commend the bill to the chamber and indicate that the government does not accept the opposition’s amendment.

See this speech in context