Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very happy to follow the member for Cowan, who I know to be a former police officer and also a former military police officer. I applaud his commitment to law enforcement.

I also lend my support to the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. As has been indicated, organised crime and the threat to safety in our community are things that our government is certainly taking intensive action to detect, disrupt and deter, as all governments should do. The government has introduced and enabled a suite of legislation and technologies aimed at doing that—from phone tapping and interception powers through to provisions relating to unexplained wealth—which are, quite frankly, designed to deter organised crime from setting up business in our communities.

Organised criminal networks are extremely sophisticated. Any view to the contrary is just wrong. Organised crime should, in many respects, be looked at as a business—a nefarious business, granted, but still a business. We need to look at and address various areas of the business of organised crime, including the issue of profit motive. Ongoing challenges to our law enforcement agencies include how we gather intelligence, how we distribute that intelligence and how we engage with state and territory jurisdictions, with a view to setting aside some of the effects that organised crime has on our society. As I said, organised crime is a very sophisticated business. The Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework recognises that we must ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers that they need in order to combat criminal networks. I strongly support the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill, which amends the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

As you would appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have on many occasions expressed my respect and appreciation for the work of our police. They are often called upon to risk their lives in order to protect our communities. It is important that we recognise their endeavours in this respect. The bill will enhance the powers available to the Australian Federal Police and provide the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission—currently Mr John Lawler—with powers, similar to those of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, to appropriately deal with staff who engage in serious misconduct or corruption. I will speak a little more about that later on.

Given that organised crime reportedly costs the Australian community in the vicinity of $15 million each year, it has to be recognised that it is a significant national threat. The Prime Minister is certainly committed to doing whatever is possible to support and protect our community in that regard. The powers that the Australian Crime Commission staff have are quite extensive, including the power to collect information, accumulate intelligence, and the coercive power to force people to answer questions et cetera. They have those powers for a very good reason. But, where there are extraordinary powers of that nature, there also lies an extraordinary level of responsibility on the organisation and the people who work in that organisation. That is not to say that the staff of the Australian Crime Commission should be treated differently from other public servants in many respects, but, as with people who work in defence and intelligence organisations, they are privy to some of the most private information about people as well as to strategic information about crime itself and, as a consequence, they cannot be seen in all respects—whether they are staff or officers—just as employees for the purposes of various acts, including the Workplace Relations Act.

This bill will allow the commissioner of the Australian Crime Commission to act on issues of misbehaviour in a way that mirrors the abilities of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner and is similar, if not identical, to what applies in every other police jurisdiction in this country. I should say that bringing forward this bill follows a unanimous recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which sought to grant these powers to the commissioner of the Australian Crime Commission. People who are involved in these institutions need to understand not only the role that is given to them under the act but the trust that is put in them when the powers are conferred on those organisations with which they are involved. It is a special class of responsibility. If it were a normal police force all the people involved—staff and officers—would have taken an oath of office. In the police force, they are not classified as employees. They have an oath of office; they are in fact officers. This bill brings that sentiment on par as it applies to the Australian Crime Commission. It is not something foreign to most of the staff of the Australian Crime Commission, who are either seconded from police forces around the country or are former police officers themselves. Effectively, this piece of legislation does much to ensure the integrity of the organisation, an organisation in which we vest considerable powers. I think that is right and, as I say, it was subject to the unanimous recommendation of the parliamentary joint committee on law enforcement integrity.

As I said earlier, the Australian Crime Commission has the ability to use coercive powers to require people to answer questions, and the actual questioning in that area is undertaken by what are called the examiners. Presently there are a limited number of examiners in the authority and there is a lot of crime to detect and to investigate. This bill makes amendments to appoint part-time examiners. Given that the needs of examination can change from topic through to geography, it is appropriate that we have greater flexibility in the exercise of coercive powers and compulsory questioning by examiners. I think it is something that many of us associated with policing would say is overdue because of the amount of pressure that has been put on the Australian Crime Commission, but it is certainly very much a relief to those of us who take an interest in that organisation that this bill is going forward to bring about added flexibility in addressing the issue of part-time examiners to exercise those investigative powers.

The bill also amends the Crimes Act 1914. I believe it is necessary to adapt our laws to the rapidly changing technological advances in our society. As a matter of fact, I spoke briefly yesterday on some aspects of scams and phishing. A lot of these technologies are deployed in serious and organised crime, and these amendments will help police deal effectively with the increasingly popular electronic equipment, whether it is laptops, USB drives or flash drives, assisting them in locating and searching such equipment when undertaking investigations, subject to search warrants. Allowing police officers to seek an order from a magistrate to assist with assessing electronic data seized under a warrant will be pretty helpful in determining the value of evidence in matters that are being investigated. If an item is believed to be linked with a terrorist act or a serious offence, the magistrate will have power to make orders to prevent the return of such items to the people concerned, regardless of charges.

Measures have been taken to ensure that people’s rights are not abused. A procedure has been developed where, should an officer seek to exercise these powers, all reasonable steps will have to be taken to discover those persons who have an interest in the property or thing to be confiscated and to notify them of the purpose of the application. The person of interest will then have the opportunity to speak for themselves before the order is actually given.

The bill will also provide the Australian Federal Police with powers to take fingerprints and to photograph persons in lawful custody. The fingerprints and photographs will be taken only with respect to serious criminal matters or indictable offences, and that actually does bring the Commonwealth into line with the majority of state and territory jurisdictions.

In the short time I have available I take the opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of four local police commanders: Superintendent Peter Lennon, from Fairfield, Superintendent Danny Doherty, from Liverpool, Superintendent Ray King, from Cabramatta, and Superintendent Darrin Wilson, from Green Valley. Clearly these are very, very committed police officers, as are the men and women who serve under them. They do a sterling job in protecting the community and the safety of the people in my area.

I would like to particularly acknowledge Leading Senior Constable Tiffany Duane, from Fairfield Police Station, for her outstanding work and for the contributions she has made with respect to domestic violence. Tragically, although there has been an improvement in all other crime statistics, one statistic that remains stubbornly high is domestic violence. It is clearly a scourge on our modern society and something that has a cost not only to individuals and families but to a community as a whole. I do pay regard to the work that Tiffany has done. She has been recognised by being named the Rotary Fairfield Police Officer of the Year. I think that is a reflection of how important it is that we do have people prepared to go out there and champion the issue of domestic violence.

I have been advised that the four police commanders that I mentioned, from Green Valley, Liverpool, Cabramatta and Fairfield, took it upon themselves to take up the challenge of an interbranch competition to determine which region has the best record of blood donation. I think that is not a bad way for police officers to act. They are clearly committed in terms of fighting crime and what they do about public protection, but their generosity in participating in a blood donation competition shows to me and my community that the police genuinely do care.

Police officers and the police force generally protect our Australian community, and it is important that our laws give them the powers that they need and the tools that they need to do their jobs properly. As society evolves, particularly in relation to technological advances, and as time passes, organised crime networks are becoming more sophisticated. We have got to make sure that our law enforcement officers have the same degree of technology available to them to be able to combat crime and protect our communities. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context