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

I rise to speak on the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Powers) Bill 2015. This bill makes amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2014. Primarily, this bill sets out to clarify the powers of the Australian Crime Commission when conducting examinations and the powers of the Integrity Commissioner to conduct his or her hearings, putting beyond doubt the intention of the parliament.

Currently, the Australian Crime Commission and the Integrity Commissioner examinations of serious and organised crime or cases of corruption within the law enforcement system involve questioning persons, compelling them to produce a document or to answer questions—failing to do so is a crime. We refer to that as coercive powers. Ordinarily, our police services and other law enforcement agencies do not have these powers. These powers were very rarely allocated to other law enforcement bodies and, as a consequence, there was a need for the Crime Commission and its predecessor, the National Crime Authority, to be invested with these powers. A specific parliamentary joint committee was established to oversee the Australian Crime Commission on the basis that it holds these coercive powers.

There has been no apology from parties of either side of this House for why this came about in the first instance. It was clearly seen as a necessary mechanism to fight contemporary serious and organised crime. However, more recently, as demonstrated in a number of cases, statutory interpretation of the legislation has had the impact of limiting the scope of these powers in circumstances where answers given in evidence under coercive powers can be restricted in criminal proceedings. This bill tries to rectify that. These powers have been read down by various judicial and appellate bodies to the effect of reducing what was, I would contend, the original intention of the legislation when it passed this House initially. For example, the case of Seller and McCarthy in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal was dealing not with the Australian Crime Commission but with the evidence that was given under coercive powers. The appellate court found that some of the evidence from the examination material could be unfair and therefore should not be considered in subsequent criminal proceedings.

The previous speaker referred to a case in the High Court: X7 v Australian Crime Commission. In this case the High Court found by a majority that the Australian Crime Commission was not authorised under the ACC Act to examine a person who was already charged with a specific offence. I believe that this was not the intention of the legislation when it was initially passed by the parliament. However, with respect to their honours, their decision impacts the legislation by reading down the powers of the ACC. What we intend to do with this legislation, which is supported by both sides, I am happy to say, is to ensure that we clarify the intention of the parliament by bringing the legislation back to what it was originally meant to do when it was first passed by this parliament.

We are very fortunate in having an organisation such as the Australian Crime Commission. It has now developed to be the country's premier criminal intelligence agency. It is probably not widely understood that this organisation works very much hand in glove not only with the Australian Federal Police but with the law enforcement agencies that apply in each of our state and territory jurisdictions. The evidence that it is able to elicit by using its very special powers is instrumental in attacking serious and organised crime. It is something which I think we should be proud of in this place. Efforts in this regard have always been subject to bipartisan support. Clearly, Labor will always support measures that improve the work of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies and ensure that they have the tools to do their very important job. It is important that we give the people whom we invest with the responsibility of protecting our communities the powers that they need, particularly when it is a fight against serious and organised crime.

As a long-serving member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, and chair of it for many years, I have certainly been kept informed of the work of the Australian Crime Commission, particularly in the area of tackling serious and organised crime. Over the years, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which has conducted many inquiries into serious and organised crime, has made many recommendations to governments of both political persuasions. I cannot recall that there has ever been a dissenting report by that committee. Happily, governments of either side have, by and large, accepted the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

The committee is certainly of the view that there is an increasing risk to our community from serious and organised crime, including transnational crime. At the moment, the estimated cost of such crimes to our community is in the vicinity of $15 billion each year. Given the substantial harm to our communities and to economic activity, the committee initiated an inquiry into legislative arrangements designed to thwart serious and organised crime. As part of that, the parliament charged a joint committee with conducting an international review of laws that were applicable in jurisdictions such as North America, Europe and the United Kingdom and to look at the contemporary legislative mechanisms for combating serious and organised crime.

It was through that exercise and through the recommendations of that committee that the initial unexplained wealth legislation was introduced into, and passed by, this House. The significance of that was that, along with contemporary efforts in law enforcement, there was a realisation that organised crime is not just a criminal venture, it is a business—and, like every business, it is profit driven and it will look for windows of opportunity to exploit its enterprise. Criminals will exploit issues of state and territory boundaries and constitutionality, where difficulties arise in terms of powers. This brings us back to this bill, which is about this parliament trying to close that window of opportunity in the application of those coercive powers. As the name implies, the unexplained wealth legislation is designed to attack criminals where they feel it most, in the hip pocket, to undermine the business model of the criminal enterprise and also to make it easier for law enforcement to track the kingpins that underpin that business relationship.

As I said earlier, the ACC has developed into the nation's premier criminal intelligence agency and plays a crucial role in combating crime. Over the last 12 months alone the ACC has seized more than $23 million in cash and more than $150 million in assets; shared more than 2,000 intelligence reports with over 254 different agencies; produced 60 reports on outlaw motorcycle gangs; seized more than $386 million worth of drugs; engaged in the disruption of 39 different criminal entities; and conducted 263 coercive examinations.

The powers I have outlined are necessary if we are to be serious about fighting serious and organised crime in this country. You cannot expect our law enforcement agencies to simply wait for the commissioning of a crime, hoping to effect an arrest after the event. For every crime that is committed, there is already a victim of a crime. We expect our criminal intelligence agencies to work together to ensure that crime and criminal enterprise are disrupted. This bill seeks to give greater clarification of the intentions of this parliament in respect of the activities of the Australian Crime Commission and its powers with respect to coercive examinations to make it less likely that they will be struck down in future proceedings before the courts. I support the bill. I would also like to commend the efforts of all those brave men and women who serve this country in the range of law enforcement agencies. They do a job that, thankfully, makes a difference for our communities. They experience various activities. They see the best and the worst of our communities. If it were not for these people who are brave enough to put on a police uniform, we would be very much a society of the worst.

See this speech in context