Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the members for speaking to the motion. The government does not intend to support the motion. I'll explain why in detail.

Obviously it's the case that the Australian government takes all allegations of illegal activity very seriously. Everyone must abide by the Australian law. That's particularly the case for any members of our law enforcement, immigration or customs authorities. They, of course, as part of the broader Australian law enforcement community, hold very privileged positions and, as such, are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism at all times. A strong integrity and professional standards culture is fundamental to public confidence in their work and the Australian government's work.

I have considered the allegations that have been raised in the media, particularly as they touch upon allegations which are either directly or tangentially relatable to Commonwealth officers. It's my view that sufficient concerns have been raised to at least warrant further investigations.

I might note for the benefit of the members that were speaking to this motion that saying that there are sufficient concerns to warrant me, as the Attorney-General, to refer this matter for consideration under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 is not to say that I have before me, or that is otherwise available, any obvious evidence that supports allegations against law enforcement, immigration or customs authorities. Rather, it's the case that section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act might be called a precautionary referral provision—and I already enacted that provision earlier today.

I can inform the House that I have already referred this matter—these allegations—to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. Under that referral provision, it is now open for ACLEI to decide whether or not to launch an investigation. If they determine not to, that would be a matter that they would need to inform me about as to what it was that they considered was appropriate. If it was 'no further action' then they would need to advise me of that. Obviously that's advice that I would relay publicly.

I might say to members who have supported this motion and spoken in favour of it that ACLEI is a very appropriate—in fact the most appropriate—body to consider the allegations. They have very significant investigatory powers, stronger than those of a parliamentary committee, including the ability to apply for search warrants and issue notices that attract a criminal penalty if not complied with. I would note that ACLEI also has the ability to hold hearings, exercise coercive powers and seize evidence. It is highly experienced in these types of investigations and indeed in considering prima facie allegations to determine whether or not a full investigation is necessary. It's better resourced to quickly and effectively consider the need for an investigation and to conduct that investigation into any alleged corruption if that is required.

In addition to the observation that ACLEI is clearly the best placed body to consider these allegations I also offer the observation that a parliamentary committee of the type you now seek to have formed is totally ill-equipped to deal with an inquiry of the nature you envisage or that may be required in a matter of this type. I also offer the observation that it would be significantly detrimental to have some form of parliamentary inquiry running parallel to a potential ACLEI inquiry. Significant legal issues and risks could very likely arise for any witnesses called before both hearings. In fact a parliamentary committee inquiry would likely cause enormous difficulties to the efficacious running of ACLEI's inquiry if they determine to undertake one.

I'd also note that, if ACLEI uncovered any conduct by any other public service officers outside those determined in its remit as law enforcement officers, or by civilians or employees of a commercial organisation who don't fall within ACLEI's jurisdiction, ACLEI can refer information and allegations to the AFP for further investigation. I note that, as these allegations have earlier today already been referred to ACLEI under the section of the act I've nominated, it would not be appropriate to comment any further on the substance of the allegations.

I would say, though, that I think the member for Mayo's comment—that anything other than support for the motion before the House reveals the major parties are somehow beholden to the gambling industry—is a frankly absurd contention to put. This has now been referred to ACLEI, as I have noted. I think that is the appropriate course of action. I also note for the benefit of the House that I did advise the member for Clark of the fact that I had already sent this matter to ACLEI, as I am able to under section 18 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act. My observation is that it was probably the better course to withdraw the motion in those circumstances but it is up to the member for Clark to determine what he considers is the appropriate course. With the matter having been referred to ACLEI, the body appropriately placed to investigate it, pursuing a motion to set up a parallel parliamentary committee is wrongheaded. It would discourage and withdraw efficacy from the ACLEI investigation, but if the motion is not going to be withdrawn it would be the government's view that it should be opposed, and we'll oppose it on the basis that this has already been referred to the appropriate authority.

See this speech in context