Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee’s report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2008-09, together with evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

I am very pleased to speak tonight on the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity’s examination of the Integrity Commissioner’s annual report for 2008-09. The 2008-09 annual report is the third annual report of the Integrity Commissioner and covers the second full year of operation. Of course, ACLEI commenced operation on 30 December 2006, midway through the 2006-07 financial year. The committee’s review of the annual report is one of its important recurrent responsibilities. As the committee chair, I am happy to say that the 2008-09 annual report reflects an agency that has matured and is now firmly embedded in, and positively influencing, the Commonwealth integrity and law enforcement environment.

The previous reporting period, 2007-08, was characterised as a time of consolidation, in which ACLEI transitioned to corporate autonomy and refined its assessment and investigation expertise. During 2008-09, ACLEI emerged as a more externally focused agency. This was evident in two ways: first, ACLEI demonstrated its growing expertise through its contributions to key government priorities—the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework, for example—as well as to the integrity processes of the agencies under its oversight; second, ACLEI actively focused its efforts to ensure it is informed by, and responds to, broader policy challenges. ACLEI’s contribution to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of secrecy laws is one example of this.

Since ACLEI commenced operation in December 2006, the agency has experienced a steady increase in potential corruption issues notified and referred. This trend shows no signs of abating. The committee therefore welcomes the transfer of an additional $1.6 million over four years to ACLEI announced in the 2010-11 budget. This additional funding will undoubtedly augment ACLEI’s capacity to assess potential corruption matters and complete investigations in a timely manner. Notwithstanding this injection of funding, the committee remains concerned about the resourcing pressures on ACLEI, the consequent workload pressures on ACLEI staff and the impact of these upon timeliness of investigations. The committee has therefore reiterated its recommendation from previous reports that ACLEI’s funding be increased.

Intelligence gathering is integral to the work of ACLEI. The committee notes the progress ACLEI has made in establishing sound relationships with state and federal intelligence sources, facilitating a trusted basis for the exchange of data. The report notes, however, the importance of ACLEI gaining access to Commonwealth information and intelligence databases in a more timely and streamlined—and, ideally, cost-neutral—manner. The committee has also encouraged the consideration of options that may give the Integrity Commissioner greater capacity to prohibit the disclosure of information in certain circumstances in order to protect the integrity of investigations. In particular, the committee suggests that consideration be given to incorporating a provision in the LEIC Act that allows for a prohibition on the disclosure of information invoked under sections 75 and 76 of the act.

The committee continues its support for the proactive approach ACLEI has taken to corruption deterrence and prevention and notes the value of the activities it undertook in 2008-09. These included: corruption risk reviews of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police, which culminated in the very useful report Resistance to corruption; presentations to AFP and ACC staff to help instil a culture of integrity; and the identification of corruption risks during investigations, and the transmittal of this learning back to the agency.

ACLEI has developed into an organisation that, although still small, is highly effective and well respected by the agencies it oversees and by those in the integrity community. The committee hopes to soon learn of the government’s response to its recommendation, made in the first part of its current inquiry into the operation of the LEIC Act, that ACLEI’s jurisdiction be immediately expanded to include the Customs and Border Protection Service. Given the corruption risks inherent in a law enforcement agency like Customs, it simply makes good sense to provide this increased oversight and such a measure, I understand, would be welcomed by the Customs service itself.

I take this opportunity to commend the Integrity Commissioner and his staff for their hard work and dedication during the reporting period and for the production of an informative annual report. I also state in this place that the committee is fully satisfied with the information sharing, cooperation and responsiveness it has received from the Integrity Commissioner and his staff since the inception of ACLEI and looks forward to a continued positive working relationship. Finally, as always, I thank the hard-working committee secretariat for their assistance in producing the committee’s report.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I too would like to make a comment on the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner. It is important to realise that corruption can take many forms. It could be a conflict of interest, improper associations, nepotism or cronyism. It could be the abuse of office or the abuse of power, perjury, inappropriate disclosure, the fabrication of evidence, fraud or theft. These are possibilities that occur with the transmission of power. Traditionally, the way of dealing with those matters would be very much a reactionary model. Dealing with corruption would take the form of awaiting the processes of the judicial system. If a suspect was first investigated and there was sufficient evidence, a charge would be laid before the courts. Court proceedings would eventually involve a verdict. One way or another, that would be evidence or otherwise of corruption.

Since 2006, with the establishment of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, there has been a bipartisan attempt to have a very proactive model to look at integrity within law enforcement. ACLEI itself oversees the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission, particularly in instances of alleged corruption within those organisations. Having said that, I know from my involvement with those bodies that the AFP as well as the ACC have very fine internal integrity processes, and they are to be complimented on that. But, when we increase the powers of organisations such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission and when we give them coercive powers, particularly in respect of the latter, it is only proper that we take all practical steps to ensure that that power is not abused and that integrity is uppermost in the minds of people who exercise that power on our behalf. This process is important not only for public safety but also for public confidence in our systems of law enforcement.

Given that organised crime costs this country between $10 billion and $15 billion a year, it is reasonable to expect that the tentacles of organised crime can easily find their way into corrupt practices within various organisations, regardless of who they are administered by. ACLEI has a direct responsibility not simply to ferret out criminal acts within the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission but also proactively to set the standards of proper conduct within those organisations.

Since late 2006, ACLEI has identified a steady increase in potential areas of corruption within those organisations. As a consequence, it has enhanced its own intelligence-gathering capacities as well as employing good collaborative relationships between other federal and state intelligence services. I too welcome the additional funds which have been allocated to ACLEI in this budget, an extra $1.6 million over the next four years.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for statements on this report has expired.