Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk about the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. The main purpose of this bill is to strengthen the powers of the Australian Crime Commission’s Chief Executive Officer in dealing with ACC employees who engage in serious misconduct or corruption, and to strengthen the powers of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies to gather, examine and use evidence in the investigation and prevention of criminal offences.

The bill will align the dismissal powers of the CEO of the ACC to deal with serious misconduct and corruption with those of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, provide more flexible arrangements for appointing ACC examiners and extend the application of certain search related provisions in the Crimes Act that apparently only apply to searches conducted under warrants in relation to premises so that they also apply to searches conducted under a warrant in relation to a person.

The bill will also insert rules to govern when documents are produced under the Crimes Act; streamline and extend provisions governing applications for and determinations of orders in relation to the Crimes Act; allow the AFP Commissioner to delegate responsibility for dealing with things seized and documents pursued, again under the Crimes Act; introduce a new standing power for the Australian Federal Police to take fingerprints and photographs of arrested persons when taking them into custody in relation to a Commonwealth offence; and amend the Australian Federal Police Act to enable the commissioner to authorise a payment in special circumstances that arise out of or relate to a person’s engagement as an AFP appointee.

To expand a little bit on the amendments made by the bill, it will make two sets of amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act. As mentioned in the bill’s explanatory memorandum, schedule 1 will amend the ACC Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 ‘to provide the ACC CEO with powers mirroring those of the AFP Commissioner to deal with serious misconduct and corruption’. The main effect of these changes is that the ACC CEO will be able to make a declaration that a staff member’s conduct amounts to serious misconduct and can therefore ‘disapply’ the Fair Work Act 2009 in order to dismiss that staff member. The explanatory memorandum goes on:

Schedule 2 will amend the ACC Act to allow for greater flexibility in the appointment of examiners. The ACC Act currently only allows the appointment of full-time examiners. This does not meet the operational needs of the ACC. The amendments will allow the ACC to utilise part-time examiners as well as full-time examiners.

The bill will make a range of amendments that improve the operations of the Crimes Act. The bill’s explanatory memorandum notes:

Part 1 of Schedule 3 will extend the application of certain search-related provisions in the Crimes Act that currently only apply to searches conducted under warrants in relation to premises so they also apply to searches conducted under a warrant in relation to a person. These amendments will help police deal more effectively with electronic equipment, such as laptop computers and smartphones, located during searches under a warrant in relation to a person.

Further amendments to the Crimes Act include the following:

Part 2 of Schedule 3 will make three sets of amendments to Part IAA … The first set of amendments will insert rules about when documents produced under Division 4B must be returned to the person who produced them or to the owner. The second set of amendments will streamline and extend provisions governing applications for, and determination of, various orders in relation to things seized and documents produced. The final amendment will allow the AFP Commissioner to delegate responsibility for functions related to returning things seized and documents produced to a Commonwealth officer if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the officer is able to properly exercise the relevant powers, functions or duties.

Part 3 of Schedule 3 will amend the Crimes Act to provide police with a standing power to take fingerprints and photographs of arrested persons. This amendment will assist police to confirm the identity of arrested persons, prove matters relating to identity in court … and maintain accurate records of arrests.

To expand on the amendments made to the AFP Act, schedule 4 will enable the commissioner to authorise a payment in special circumstances that arise out of, or relate to, a person’s engagement as an AFP appointee. This will bring the AFP into line with other Commonwealth agencies with respect to making payments to employees and other persons in special circumstances. It will also avoid the problems currently encountered with delays in obtaining approval for ex-gratia payments.

Moving to the end of the speech—clearly, things are under control! In the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission on the Australian Crime Commission annual report for 2007-08, there was the following recommendation:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government review existing arrangements for the suspension and dismissal of Commonwealth law enforcement agency employees believed on reasonable grounds to have engaged in serious misconduct or corruption, and that the Government take action as appropriate, bearing in mind the need to respect the rights of employees.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACC noted the dismissal power available to the AFP and stated:

… it is of concern to the committee that ACC employees suspected of serious misconduct or corruption remain within the organisation and may seek to jeopardise investigations, thereby potentially compromising the security of the ACC’s operations.

In its 2008 submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, ACLEI noted that in the context of its own establishment:

... there was no perception of a significant or systemic problem with corruption in either the ACC or the AFP. The possibility that corruption could develop is ever present particularly if sufficient deterrents and detection measures were not in place.

This bill addresses these important concerns and therefore has the support of the coalition.

It is always difficult to deal with matters of suspected corruption within law enforcement agencies in the same way that you might deal with other criminal offences because, clearly, it is very difficult to apply the rights that people enjoy through the court system, for instance, to policing agencies if there has been suspected corruption of officials within those agencies.

As has been noted in the submissions to the parliamentary joint committee, it is clear that there was some concern about some difficulties within the existing regime as to how officers within the ACC might be dealt with if they were suspected of corruption. Clearly, that is an important area to address. I am pleased this bill does that and it therefore enjoys the support of the opposition.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fowler will be making his contribution to the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011] debate a little later, and I thank the House for allowing me to make a contribution at this time. This bill will improve the Australian Crime Commission’s ability to deal with serious misconduct by staff and make a range of amendments to strengthen law enforcement agencies’ powers to gather, examine and use evidence to investigate and prevent the committing of criminal offences.

The amendments have been identified primarily through ongoing discussion with portfolio law enforcement agencies. The amendments are vitally important because I believe it is paramount that those agencies that the legislation will impact on can have ownership of the legislation. These discussions with the portfolio law enforcement agencies will ensure they have ownership and that the legislation is not just put in place without their feeling that they have had input into it. Amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 align the dismissal powers of the CEO of the ACC to deal with serious misconduct and corruption with those of the AFP commissioner and provide for more flexible arrangements for appointing examiners.

I am sure the member for Cowan will be making a contribution and supporting the member for Stirling’s position on this. I am sure the member for Cowan will shortly arrive in the chamber and make a contribution to this debate following mine.

Amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 will help the police deal effectively with portable electronic and data storage devices found when searching a person under warrant. Part 2 will insert rules to govern when documents relating to serious offences and serious terrorism offences should be returned. It will introduce a new standing power for the AFP to take fingerprints and photographs of arrested persons when taking them into custody in relation to Commonwealth offences. There are also amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to allow the Commissioner of the AFP to make a payment to an AFP appointee.

From the details I have read out you can see what an important piece of legislation this is. The Crimes Act will be strengthened and that will strengthen law enforcement agencies’ powers to gather and examine evidence, as I have already stated. The government very much appreciates that it has the full support of the opposition on this legislation. That shows that it is targeting the right place in relation to law enforcement agencies. When you have legislation of this type it is really important that you have the support of both sides of parliament. For it to successfully operate, you need that approach to the legislation.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

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

Today I will take this opportunity to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 but I will confine my comments to the matters concerning changes to the way the Australian Crime Commission can operate as foreshadowed in these amendments. I certainly have an interest in such matters, being a former member of the Australian Federal Police and a current member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.

As we know, the Australian Crime Commission took over from the National Crime Authority, and its primary purpose is the investigation of organised crime. Its current determinations, or work priorities, include the criminal intelligence examination of matters such as amphetamine-type stimulants and new synthetic drugs; child sex; cocaine; complex organised technology-enabled crime, including identity crime; established criminal networks in Victoria; high-risk crime groups and high-risk crime groups in South Australia; illicit firearm markets in New South Wales; Indigenous violence or child abuse; money laundering; people smuggling; serious organised crime penetration of the border; superannuation and investment fraud; terrorism and various other matters. In the last financial year, there were 433 examinations of such matters. When we look through this list of offences and situations, it is clear that there can be a large amount of money generated in committing these sorts of crimes. And with money comes organised crime: syndicates, collaborators, conspirators—all with the common purpose of generating money illegally, and always at the cost of the innocent and the weak.

In preparing for today, I suddenly remembered last night one of those definitions that were drummed into us at the Federal Police College back in 1986, that being the definition of an investigation. It was that ‘an investigation is a search for the truth in the interests of justice and in accordance with the specifications of the law’. That definition brings in a number of concepts, which include ethics, and that is what my fairly limited, short contribution today is about—the ethical behaviour of those charged with undertaking these investigations and these criminal intelligence examinations. It is certainly the case that, where there is big money and organised crime, there is also the potential for corruption.

We can look back at the 2004 detection and then subsequent convictions of ex-Victorian police officer James McCabe and New South Wales police officer Samuel Foster on matters relating to corruption and other serious misconduct. As encouraging as those sorts of past detections have been, the question that needs to be asked is: what more can still be done or needs to be done? It has always been my view that the likelihood of corruption is greater in the state police forces because of the frustrations with the legal and justice systems. The frequency of contact with criminals and the value to criminals of corrupting police do seem to be higher at the state level when these matters are combined. That of course does not preclude corruption taking place or not taking place among permanent Federal Police officers; but, for the reasons I have outlined, I believe that it is less likely.

Nevertheless, to deal with the very few that turn from the path of justice and truth, further options for appropriate action by the CEO of the ACC are required. I note that the provisions of the bill in this capacity were influenced by the 42nd Parliament’s Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. The committee’s 23 February 2009 report on its inquiry into law enforcement integrity models included the following:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government review existing arrangements for the suspension and dismissal of Commonwealth law enforcement agency employees believed on reasonable grounds to have engaged in serious misconduct or corruption, and that the Government take action as appropriate, bearing in mind the need to respect the rights of employees.

On 13 March 2009, the ACC Chief Executive Officer, John Lawler, responded to the recommendation when he said of the ACC:

Indeed, it has access to and the storage of, as I have spoken about, very significant intelligence holdings so the thresholds around accountability and integrity and responsibility are naturally higher with the ACC than they might be in other walks of life. My view is that, if we are entrusted with those powers, with those authorities or with that information, we need to have in place robust mechanisms whereby those people who would abuse those trusts can be dealt with in a way that protects the integrity of the organisation and what parliament designed for it. I have to say that some of the current arrangements do not provide the mechanisms to do that in the way that they should.

That brings me to the enhanced dismissal powers that the amendments in the bill provide to the CEO of the ACC. It allows termination in cases where there has been serious misconduct that is having or is likely to have a damaging—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There being no quorum, the meeting of the Main Committee is suspended until further notice.

Order! A quorum having been formed, the proceedings of the Main Committee will resume.

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

I do appreciate the opportunity to again make some comments about this bill. I want to go to the part of the bill dealing with amendments relating to the enhanced dismissal powers of the CEO of the Australian Crime Commission. The amendments allow for termination in cases where there has been serious misconduct or where there has been conduct which is having, or is likely to have, a damaging effect on morale or on the reputation of the Australian Crime Commission with the Australian public or other agencies, including overseas agencies. From the opposition’s perspective, in line with the usual bipartisanship that is associated with matters on which we have absolute common ground, we welcome these changes. The integrity and the standing of the Australian Crime Commission in its dealings with other agencies are sacrosanct.

In terms of intelligence, trust, as we know, is everything. Those organisations that may share information with the ACC must be confident in the commission’s ability to properly control that information; otherwise that information will not be shared in the future. That would make the Australian Crime Commission unable to properly pursue its priorities.

I will conclude my contribution by saying that I have complete confidence in the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. Corruption is a very rare event, but precautions are always required to deal with such problems quickly and to ensure that the standing of these agencies remains high, because their standing is important and it is always in the national interest. I certainly endorse this bill as it stands.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank all members who have spoken on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I thank the Government Whip and member for Fowler for his contribution. I know he is a very strong advocate not only for policing but for our doing more in the area of serious and organised crime. I would also like to thank the members for Stirling, Shortland and Cowan for their contributions and support for this bill.

As members know, organised crime inflicts substantial harm on the community, business, government and national security. This bill builds on a range of measures the government has implemented to prevent, disrupt and investigate organised criminal activity, including the two serious and organised crime acts passed by parliament last year. It reflects the government’s continuing commitment to strengthening our law enforcement agencies’ capability to fight serious and organised crime. For that and other reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.