Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008. Being a former member of the Australian Federal Police, I very much take an interest in any legislation that affects the organisation that I was part of. I joined the AFP in 1986. That was not very long after the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 came into effect. With regard to this bill—I will get straight into it—when you read section 60A(2), unfortunately a recent amendment inadvertently removed the penalty. In other words, members of the AFP could have divulged prescribed information and then not attracted any penalty. That has been rectified in this bill and now a two-year penalty of imprisonment will be available once again.

I recall the time that I was in the AFP as a sworn constable. I knew the security arrangements at Perth and Sydney airports very well from serving there, and that is pretty useful information. In theory, if I divulged anything that I knew then—and it would be true still if I were to divulge anything now that I can recall from those days—I could spend two years in jail, so I am very keen not to go down that track. But as a constable in the Australian Federal Police, I served, following training in Canberra, in Sydney and in Perth.

Although I particularly enjoyed my time in plain clothes at Sydney airport, I also had a very good period with the fraud squad in Sydney. It was at that time, early in 1987, that I recall undertaking surveillance around Sydney as part of the fraud squad. I can say that it was the only period in my life where I have actually gone though garbage bins on a professional basis—or, in fact, on any basis whatsoever! It was not for sustenance but, obviously, for documents. We conducted surveillance across the city in that squad and at one point I recall we were following a suspect. I emphasise that we were a fraud squad; we were not a professional surveillance squad. But we needed to conduct that surveillance on a person suspected of defrauding the Commonwealth. The squad had a choice of five vehicles to use in those days. They were all Ford Falcons and all had a metal sun visor over the windscreen. On that day, three of the cars were of a bone colour. So we had a greatly limited capacity in those days. Everyone had a Ford Falcon, three of them were the same colour and there were only five cars. So it was not a great job, but that is what it was like in those days. It was pretty similar with the rest of the equipment that we had. Radios, computers, computer programs and other equipment were very far behind the high standard of kit that the AFP has these days.

A similar situation existed in regard to accommodation. When I was in the Federal Police, we were in one of the TNT towers in Redfern, covering just a few floors of that building. In fact, one night one of our Federal Police sworn officers actually got beaten up after parking a car just down the street in the official car park. I understand now that the AFP has a building in the CBD itself. Over in Perth there was a similar situation. The AFP was on Adelaide Terrace, on two floors. Now there is a building on Murray Street in West Perth, housing the AFP, Protective Services and other organisations of the Commonwealth. My point is that in 1987 the AFP was a poorly resourced and badly equipped organisation. It had fewer people, it had technology problems and it had far less support than it has had in recent years under the previous government. So I refer to the late 1980s as the ‘dark ages’ of the AFP.

The evidence is all around us. The AFP is seen as a world-class organisation in law enforcement these days. They were there in East Timor for victim identification. They have been there to implement the Howard government initiatives in preventing, countering and investigating terrorism; to oppose illicit drug trafficking, transnational and multi-jurisdictional crime; to oppose organised people-smuggling; to oppose serious fraud against the Commonwealth; to combat high-tech crime involving information technology and communications; for regional peacekeeping and capacity building; and also to work against money laundering. These are the modern battlefields for law enforcement in Australia and they affect Australia in the global environment. The AFP is well armed now with the capacity to fight these battles, and there is a stark difference between what the AFP can achieve now and what it was like back in the 1980s.

The second part of this bill seeks to alter the timing of the second review of the collection and use of DNA material by the Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. An initial review took place in March 2003, with a second review to occur two years later but, because interjurisdictional matching between most states and territories has only been in place since mid 2007, I understand that the 2005 review was not undertaken—for obvious reasons. As with all such reviews, case law is derived from a body of cases that have progressed to trial. Without such a body of cases there will not be a meaningful test of the powers and safeguards. The bill thus requires the second review to commence no later than 1 November 2009, and that should be good timing to properly assess the progress of DNA in this country.

There is little doubt that DNA represents one of the most important breakthroughs in modern law enforcement practice, and for many years now the police in Australia have been applying DNA technology with great effect. I would like to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the work the WA Police do to protect the people of my electorate in Western Australia—in particular Superintendent Andy Garkaklis and Inspector Gary Lewis of the north-west metropolitan district, and station OICs Craig Wanstall of Warwick, Ian North of Ballajura and Matt Ray of Wanneroo. Together with their teams over in Perth, they do a great job in clearing up a lot of the burglaries that take place and the other crimes that unfortunately afflict the suburbs of Cowan and elsewhere around the country.

The third part of the bill serves to ensure that the ACT Criminal Code can be applied to Australian aircraft as well as to flights originating or finishing in Australia. The code came into effect in 2007, which as I understand it resulted in some new offences that had not been in the ACT Crimes Act. The bill will enable all the offences in the code to be able to be applied on those aircraft, and this will allow flexibility in the event of future changes to ACT criminal law. This is a non-controversial bill and we support the changes that this bill provides.

See this speech in context