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

I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. This bill contains amendments that go some way towards assisting the fight against serious and organised crime and ensuring the integrity of our law enforcement processes. The coalition supports this bill and measures to combat serious corruption in our federal law enforcement agencies, although we do so noting that Australia and our agencies remain steadfastly, in almost all circumstances, corruption free and that Australia ranks very low on any international scale of countries suffering from corruption. The culture of our government is certainly one that discourages this sort of behaviour, as opposed to many other countries in the world where, very sadly, corruption is endemic to the way that government operates.

I will turn, firstly, to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which investigates law enforcement related corruption issues and focuses on systemic and serious corruption. As it stands, ACLEI's role is to detect, investigate and prevent corruption specifically in the Australian Crime Commission and in the Australian Federal Police. As mentioned in the report of the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity on its inquiry into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, ACLEI is currently restricted to dealing with corruption issues relating to an agency's law enforcement function. The committee reported that law enforcement is particularly vulnerable to corruption because information about detection and investigation methods makes it an attractive target for infiltration by organised crime and that law enforcement powers or functions present opportunities to support or protect criminal activity.

During the committee's inquiry, we heard from the Integrity Commissioner, Mr Philip Moss, who in speaking about the agencies with the highest corruption risk profile, said:

The agencies with a law enforcement function that come to mind as the obvious ones would be, in no particular order, the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Of those three, my own focus would tend towards the last, Customs and Border Protection, for a number of reasons.

ACLEI presented evidence to the committee that Customs presents the greatest inherent corruption risk of those agencies listed which are not already subject to ACLEI's jurisdiction. Mr Michael Carmody, the CEO of Customs, noted to the committee the value of external oversight and acknowledged of corruption risks of his agency. He said:

Notwithstanding the actions we have taken to ensure that we have an appropriate internal affairs unit and the action is taken in conjunction with the Australian Federal police … I always find advantage in something independent of the organisation being there to reinforce and assist.

He went on to say:

… Given the seriousness of the duties that we perform and given, at the top end of the scale, the risk that there could be criminal elements who would like to compromise officers, we would benefit from having a level of external involvement.

The Integrity Commissioner pointed out that Customs is indeed a law enforcement agency and outlined the inherent corruption risks. He specifically said:

… It is a decentralised agency, with officers having a high degree of discretion and autonomy in those decentralised locations. Customs protects the border in many ways and, of course, the increase in corruption risk goes right up in that context. Customs and Border Protection would be attractive to organised crime—and, in saying, 'organised crime', I also say to you 'transnational organised crime'—who have an interest in breaching the border …

The other phenomenon that is occurring in this area is that Customs is pushing protection of the borders offshore into countries where corruption is sometimes part of an accepted business practice.

As a result of the various submissions and evidence, the committee made the recommendation that Customs be brought under ACLEI's jurisdiction, by regulation, on a whole-of-agency basis. Whilst it is important to ensure that any possible corruption within Customs is addressed with the utmost seriousness and stamped out before it takes a firm footing, it is also important on our side of the House to acknowledge the good work that the customs agency does in very difficult circumstances. Since August 2008, Customs has been forced to deploy vast resources in our northern waters in order to cope with the flood of illegal boat arrivals we have seen since the rolling back of the coalition's strong and successful border protection regime. Due to Labor's mismanagement of our borders, there have been 227 illegal boat arrivals, carrying over 11,000 people. This year alone, we have seen 24 boat arrivals, carrying over 1,400 people to our shores. Customs does an extraordinary job not only in its border protection efforts but also with its mainstream customs duties at Australian ports and airports. The men and women at Customs are truly at the front line in protecting Australia's borders and deserve to be properly resourced for the task that they are expected to do. However, the Labor government have done exactly the opposite. They have slashed funding to Customs at a time when they need it most. Among the vast array of cuts to Australia's national security agencies was a $9.3 million cut to the budget of the Australian Customs and Border Protection command. Labor have also axed a further 90 staff from Customs on top of the 250 cut in the previous year's budget. To improve the government's bottom line, they have slashed $34 million from Customs in their passenger facilitation function at Australian and international airports. These funding cuts will put immense pressure on our front-line border protection agencies, particularly Customs, who are already struggling to do more with fewer resources under this incompetent government.

Going back to the 2009-10 budget, Labor cut funding to Customs for cargo screening by a staggering $58.1 million. The Gillard Labor government has not reinstated these slashed funds despite the disastrous consequences for our screening regime. This cut to screening by the Labor government reduced the number of potential sea cargo inspections by 25 per cent. Labor's cut also resulted in a staggering 75 per cent reduction of air cargo inspections. In the recent Customs annual report, it was revealed that only 4.3 per cent of sea cargo is X-rayed and only 0.6 per cent of sea cargo is physically examined. This means that 95.7 per cent of all sea cargo consignments coming into the country are not X-rayed. Unfortunately, under a Labor government, those cuts to Customs cargo-screening measures will mean that more drugs will flow through onto our streets and these cuts will enhance the ability of organised criminal syndicates to thrive.

With the security at our ports and airports at an all-time low under federal Labor, now is not the time for these further cuts announced in the recent budget that are therefore creating greater opportunities for organised crime and criminal gangs. I would also note that the coalition has committed to restoring that funding to Customs and therefore restoring the ability of Customs to do its job at our borders.

It has been estimated that organised crime costs the Australian community between $10 billion and $15 billion per year. Organised criminal syndicates have become more businesslike in their approach to laundering money and acquiring assets. The Australian Federal Police website notes that the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law. One of the important aspects of the act is that it provides a mechanism to allow confiscated funds to be given back to the Australian community in an endeavour to prevent and reduce the harmful effects of crime in Australia.

The bill's explanatory memorandum notes in relation to the proceeds of crime amendment that in August of 2009 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission recommended that the Australian government examine an integrated model of asset recovery in which investigation and prosecution would be undertaken within one agency. Part 1 schedule 2 will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to assist the operation of the new Australian Federal Police Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce by allowing the commissioner of the AFP to apply the powers and functions pertaining to confiscation litigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act, currently exercised by the DPP alone, and enabling the commissioners of the AFP and the DPP to transfer matters already commenced between themselves.

Other matters that this bill relates to include amending the Family Law Act 1975 to reflect the commissioner's new powers and to enable state and territory proceeds of crime orders and forfeiture applications to be taken into account in property settlements and spouse maintenance proceedings, in the same manner as Commonwealth proceeds of crime audit and forfeiture applications. The other notable amendments in this bill are the two key amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act in part 2 of schedule 2 to enhance the effectiveness of criminal asset confiscation, investigations and litigation. These amendments will amend the definition of 'property tracking document' to ensure that a magistrate can issue a production order for documents pertinent to identifying, locating and quantifying property which forms part of the wealth of a person, and improve interaction between the collection of tax related liabilities and proceeds of crime proceedings. In conclusion, serious and organised crime not only results in substantial economic cost to the Australian community but also operates at great social cost. Organised crime can threaten the integrity of political and other public institutional systems through the infiltration of these systems and the subsequent corruption of public officials. Consequently, this undermines public confidence in those institutions and impedes the delivery of good government services, law enforcement and justice.

As I noted at the outset, the Australian government and Australian government agencies are remarkably corruption free and we certainly do not notice any increase in that. But that does not mean that we should not always be vigilant to the possibility of minor incidents of corruption occurring. Therefore, the coalition does support the passage of this bill through the House.

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

I also rise to support this bill. Like the member for Stirling, I was a member of the parliamentary joint committee which sought and made recommendations to bring the issue of the Customs services within the purview of the examination by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. The reason that occurred in the first instance was not that there was any view of corruption existing in that area of government endeavour; it was a matter of making sure that we have all the necessary checks and balances very much in place.

One of the things that we have been doing, and unashamedly have been doing for some time, is giving greater powers to our law enforcement agencies. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, debates in years past. We have given coercive powers to the Australian Crime Commission, for instance, who can work in partnership with the Australian Federal Police and other agencies. They are extraordinary powers, and extraordinary powers must have suitable checks and balances to make sure powers are not being abused. Similarly, Customs have a very significant role in protecting our borders and keeping the community safe—a role, one would argue, just as important as most of our other law enforcement agencies. Therefore, it is making sure that we have in place a suite of checks and balances that can be used as far as possible to ensure that our services that we give these powers to operate appropriately and properly within the terms of the remit they have from this parliament.

There is no apology given for that. To that extent this is just another step in that direction. This may not be the only step that is ever taken in that respect because, as we move to protect our citizens by increasing the powers of other agencies, those agencies as well may be considered in terms of law enforcement integrity. This is significant. It is also significant that this was supported from the outset on a bipartisan basis. There is certainly no minority report from when it was dealt with by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement. I am indebted to the minister for responding promptly to that and ensuring that it comes back and finds its way into the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 as it has here today.

I would like to comment on the business that underpins criminal activity in the country. I have seen the costings of the Australian Crime Commission. They say the cost of criminal activity to our community, as it stands today, is somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion from fraud, theft, blackmail and a whole host of things which ultimately have at the base a profit motive. One of the clear things that I have learnt in all my time of supporting law enforcement agencies throughout this country is that, when it comes to catching crooks, follow the money trail. Essentially that is really what schedule 2 of this piece of legislation is doing. The government see that the issue of serious and organised crime is based on a profit motive. What we are trying to do is provide the legal teeth to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the ability to go after the money. One of those matters is to do with issues of confiscation of wealth through the proceeds of crime measures. This is dealt with in schedule 2 of the amendment legislation, which provides for the framework of a Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, which will be led by the Australian Federal Police. This was established at the election in 2010 with an interim task force being launched in March of this year. The amendment will ensure that this has a permanent place in our agencies for the fight against organised crime.

I note that the minister has joined us. He knows only too well that the basis of criminal activity, particularly in terms of its impact on the community, is very much profit driven. This is trying to look at an ability for our agencies to identify and to then be able to prosecute in respect of the potential for asset confiscation matters. At the moment it is a matter of record that only the Commonwealth DPP has the authority to conduct that process under the Proceeds of Crime Act and schedule 2 of the amendment legislation will enable the AFP to have greater flexibility to take those matters on itself. It will also allow for transfers of matters between the AFP and the DPP. This will ensure there is greater flexibility and efficiency within the system in that respect.

A greater harmonisation will also be achieved to do with forfeiture of assets processes throughout the Commonwealth. As a consequence of this we will see the harmonisation of approach, which is so essential because there is no criminal group that is going to defer to the Constitution or to the geography of the states to discern where it will conduct its next criminal endeavour. As I have said, criminals are driven by a profit motive. If we create or allow to remain in existence legal loopholes, they will be exploited. That is what this is designed to do: to ensure that criminal activity, which covers across state borders, is minimised by having a greater harmonisation of approach and that our agencies are better equipped in terms of identifying, disrupting and prosecuting such activity.

I seldom let an opportunity go by in this place to highlight the work that our law enforcement agencies do, and this will certainly not be an opportunity lost. I find it quite amazing that people have the courage to put on a blue uniform and be prepared to go out and do what is necessary to defend and protect our community. These are a special type of people. I think that what those people need is not simply gratitude, although I think they could do with a little bit more respect occasionally, but also to be equipped with the tools necessary to go about their task of protecting our community. This piece of legislation is another step towards doing that. This piece of legislation is moving to ensure the integrity of our adjacent agencies, particularly as to Customs and Border Protection, and it is moving to give the AFP greater powers vis-a-vis the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure it can prosecute in respect of elements of the proceeds of crime and return those moneys to the community. This will put them on the front foot to attack the business model that underpins criminal endeavour. That is what this legislation does.

There are probably going to be many, many more steps that will follow on from all of this. Like every other enterprise out there, the criminal enterprise is not static. It is forever evolving, which requires our parliament to also play its role in an ongoing way to ensure that, wherever possible, we equip our police with the appropriate tools and legislative support they need to get on and do the job of protecting our community. I commend the amendment bill to the House.

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

I rise to thank the honourable members for their contributions to this important debate. The members for Stirling and Fowler have focused on some of the elements of the bill before us. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 contains amendments designed to ensure the integrity of our law enforcement processes and to strengthen the efficacy of our responses to serious and organised crime. That is why it is such an important bill.

The bill contains amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to bring the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service within the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. I think that is a very important and vital reform. It is one that resulted from an examination by a parliamentary committee and, as the member for Stirling indicated, one that was agreed by the chief executive officer of Customs at the time as a good approach. It just shows that the chief executive officer was correct in his view that we need, from time to time, external and independent oversight of our agencies. I want to pay tribute to Michael Carmody for that enlightened view about the way in which we consider examining that from within the agency. This is a very important element of the bill.

In line with the government's Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework, the bill also contains amendments to key Commonwealth legislation to ensure the streamlined operation of the government's new Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce. The task force, a multi-agency initiative that represents a new, more holistic and dynamic approach to the complex area of proceeds of crime, illustrates delivery of another Gillard government election commitment. By combining the expertise of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Crime Commission and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions we are ensuring the close cooperation of intelligence operations, forensic accounting, litigation and specialist law enforcement in detecting and confiscating the financial motivation and fuel of organised crime. As has been said before—and will be said in the future, no doubt—money is the lifeblood of organised crime. The government believes that this new, integrated approach will be very effective in combating organised crime.

To that end, the bill will facilitate the new litigation role of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce by extending the power to conduct proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to the AFP. The bill also contains other important enhancements to the proceeds of crime regime. Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 will allow a stay of family law proceedings relating to property and spousal maintenance when action is being taken at the same time under state or territory proceeds of crime legislation. And proposed amendments to the definition of property-tracking documents in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 will allow a magistrate to issue a production order for all documents relevant to unexplained wealth proceedings, ensuring that these production powers are consistent with other proceeds of crime tools. Finally, the bill will increase the court's flexibility under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in dealing with the complex interaction between tax related liabilities and proceeds of crime proceedings. These improvements to the proceeds of crime scheme are part of a consistent commitment to cracking down on organised crime, removing its incentive as well as its capacity for reinvestment. The stronger our proceeds of crime infrastructure, the weaker the criminal architecture that props up organised crime. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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