Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to make this contribution to the debate on the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016. The Australian Labor Party has a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption. We are committed to fighting corruption in any form, be it corruption in business, corruption in politics, corruption in unions or corruption in law enforcement. This commitment is backed up by a very strong track record in government. In government, federal Labor took important steps to ensure government integrity. We introduced whistleblower protections for public servants, we set up a lobbying code of conduct and a lobbyist register, and we implemented a code of conduct for the first time for ministerial staff. We also took steps to prevent corruption within law enforcement. We expanded the powers of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and we strongly supported the then Australian Crime Commission.

The bill before us implements a number of changes to Commonwealth laws to assist state anti-corruption bodies. Labor supports state and territory efforts to tackle corruption. We believe that state anti-corruption bodies, such as the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the new New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, are a vital part of our national integrity system and play a critical role in ensuring public confidence in law enforcement. The bill before us updates a number of Commonwealth laws to provide the Victorian IBAC and the new NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission with powers to support their investigative activities. The bill updates Commonwealth legislation to provide these two bodies with the same powers as equivalent state and territory anti-corruption bodies, such as the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission. Schedule 1 of the bill replaces references in Commonwealth legislation to the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission with its replacement body, the New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. As part of this update, the bill removes the Police Integrity Commission from the list of criminal law enforcement agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act—or what we commonly call in this parliament the data retention legislation—and replaces it with the new LECC.

Being listed as a criminal law enforcement agency under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act would enable LECC officers some pretty significant powers. In certain circumstances, they would be able to apply for stored communications warrants to access SMS messages and emails, require telecommunications carriers to preserve all communications relating to specific persons, and authorise the disclosure of telecommunications data prospectively for up to 45 days. These are very significant powers and have the potential to greatly affect people's privacy. It is for this reason that the bill before us was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, for review pursuant to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. That happened because of a reform that Labor put forward to the data retention legislation in the last parliament.

The PJCIS has considered the proposed legislation and particularly this question of substituting the Police Integrity Commission with the LECC on the list of criminal law enforcement agencies. The PJCIS has found that the investigative powers being provided to the LECC in the bill are approximately the same as those currently available to the Police Integrity Commission. However, while the nature and type of the LECC's investigative powers will be the same as the PIC, the range of conduct that may be subject to investigation has changed slightly. Despite this, the PJCIS in its review found that the powers of the new LECC will be comparable to those of other integrity bodies in other Australian states such as the New South Wales ICAC, the Victorian IBAC and the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission. It is in light of those findings that the PJCIS supported the inclusion of the LECC in the list of criminal law enforcement agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and recommended that this bill be passed.

Labor very much support state and territory efforts to tackle corruption. We also believe it is important to properly scrutinise legislation which may affect peoples' privacy, and it has been terrific to see that the reform and the PJCIS review are working so well. Following the scrutiny of this proposed legislation through the PJCIS review process, Labor will support the passage of this bill.

Alongside the changes I have talked about, there are some additional changes contained in this bill that relate to processes of crime legalisation. Specifically, the bill will close a loophole which currently allows criminals to use the exploits of their crimes through different financial structures that they can create to do so. In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Western Australia found that under current federal proceeds of crime legislation, a property will be considered to be 'lawfully acquired' if the initial deposit for the property is paid for with legitimate money even if the mortgage repayments on that property are made using proceeds of crime. This is obviously a significant loophole that would allow criminals to funnel the money they make from their crime into property investments, and that is something that cannot be allowed under our processes of crime regime. The bill will insert a new paragraph into section 336A of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which will see that issue addressed, and the change will ensure that property will be 'lawfully acquired' if the payments that are used to acquire and retain the property, either directly or indirectly, are also 'lawfully acquired'.

Subparagraph 336A(c)(i) will address situations where a person makes mortgage repayments using unlawfully obtained money, as this money is used to discharge a security on that person's legal and equitable interest in the property. It also covers rental payments made using unlawfully obtained money, which enables criminals to retain their properties. Subparagraph 336A(c)(ii) will address situations where a person obtains money under a loan contract, then pays off that loan using unlawfully obtained money. Finally, subparagraph 336A(c)(iii) will address situations of 'layered' liabilities which can be used to avoid penalties under the current proceeds of crime regime. They include, for example, situations where a person uses unlawfully obtained funds to discharge a loan, then uses the money from that first loan to discharge debts owed under a second loan, and then uses the second loan to purchase a property.

The Commonwealth proceeds of crime regime is very important in the way that we try to tackle crime in Australia. It deters people from engaging in criminal activity by reducing the profits of the potentials of their crime, and it prevents crime by diminishing the funds that criminals can use for future crime. We are very pleased to see this amendment being made to try to tighten up our proceeds of crime legalisation. We support the closing of the loophole and the continued effectiveness of the proceeds of crime legislation.

In conclusion, this bill provides a range of important and necessary measures to bring our Commonwealth laws up to date with changes in state laws and to close the loophole that I have discussed in the proceeds of crime regime. Labor supports this bill and its many measures to assist state and federal agencies to combat crime and corruption.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased this afternoon to rise to speak on the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016. It is a bill which amends a series of acts—the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989, the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Privacy Act 1988, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

All up, although there are a number of acts that it amends, there are three basic things that this bill does. Firstly, it supports the establishment of the New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, known as the LECC and its inspector. Secondly, it aligns the independent broad-based, anti-corruption commission in Victoria investigative powers with those available to other state anti-corruption bodies. Thirdly, it amends the Proceeds of Crime Act to clarify the definition of 'lawfully acquired' to address issues raised by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Huang 2016 in the West Australia Supreme Court.

One thing that is important in this bill is that it talks about alignments of different policing statutes that we have. We have in this country, of course, each state with its own separate police force, its own separate set of laws and its own separate set of crime statistics. I think it is very important that we do as much as we can to get alignment across those different jurisdictions to give us a better handle on exactly what the areas of crime are that we are tackling. One example that I would like to give demonstrating the importance of alignments is some of the recent crime statistics that we have between New South Wales and Victoria. To start with, for Victoria we only have some figures for the year-to-date June 2016, while the New South Wales figures are for 24 months to the year June 2016. So they are not exactly apples for apples in timing, but they do give us somewhere to start of a reasonably similar period of time. Also, the categories of crime do not align, so where we have reporting of crime statistics, we are again not getting apples-for-apples comparisons, but we are getting something reasonably close, and this is what I think needs more alignment.

Let's firstly look at Victoria. For the year to 30 June 2016 we have seen, in Victoria, assault and related offences up by 11 per cent. We have seen robbery in that state up 14 per cent. You would think New South Wales would have similar figures. Although these are for two years, where we have seen robbery up in Victoria by 14 per cent in New South Wales robbery with a weapon is down 25.9 per cent, robbery with a firearm is down 41 per cent and robbery with a weapon not being a firearm is down 22 per cent. This is a massive discrepancy between the two states, which gives cause for a greater federal look at these issues to see why we are not getting alignment. Let's look at another statistic from Victoria. We see theft in Victoria, in the last 12 months, up an incredible 19.2 per cent. We are talking something like another 30,000 incidents of theft reported in Victoria. It is 19.2 per cent up in just 12 months.

What are the comparable figures for New South Wales? There is not a specific theft category but we do have some other categories we can look at. In New South Wales motor vehicle theft is down 12.6 per cent. Stealing from a dwelling, in New South Wales, is again down 6.6 per cent. Stealing from persons is again down 9.9 per cent. In comparison with Victoria, we have seen theft up 19 per cent.

Here is another statistic. We have seen in Victoria dangerous and negligent acts endangering people up an incredible 23 per cent. Also in Victoria are public nuisance offences up 30 per cent. This is in a 12-month period. Public transport regulations offences in Victoria are up 33.3 per cent, one-third. Yet in New South Wales we see the exact opposite. Malicious damage to property in New South Wales is down 3.2 per cent. Break and enter from a dwelling is down 7.2 per cent.

This is the reason we need to look at the individual crime statistics from our different states. We need to try and get some alignment here. The figures and the discrepancies between New South Wales and Victoria are stark and alarming. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hughes and the member for Hotham for their contributions to this debate. The Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016 demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to supporting state and territory governments in tackling corruption and misconduct and depriving criminals of their proceeds of crime.

The bill supports the establishment of the New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and its inspector. The bill provides the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission with access to information obtained under the Commonwealth interception regime, similar to other state anticorruption commissions. Access to such information is vital to enable the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission to prevent, detect and investigate law enforcement corruption and misconduct.

The Commonwealth interception regime provides safeguards, in relation to how agencies that receive intercepted material are able to use that material and communicate that information. This bill will also ensure Victoria's Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission's powers under Commonwealth law align with those available to equivalent state anticorruption bodies. These powers are a critical tool for the commission to discharge a critical integrity and oversight role.

The bill will also make minor amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to ensure that property acquired unlawfully is not kept by criminals and protected from the reach of this act. The methods that criminals use to retain proceeds of crime are constantly evolving and the government is committed to ensuring that the law also evolves to address these methods.

Currently, there is uncertainty as to whether a court can examine the source of mortgage repayments in determining whether a property that is subject to the mortgage is lawfully acquired. This bill removes that uncertainty. It will require courts to examine layered loans, leaseholds, mortgage repayments and other seemingly legitimate payments related to the property in determining whether the property is lawfully acquired. This is essential to ensure criminals are deprived of the proceeds of offences and undermine the profitability of criminal enterprise.

This bill is an important step in ensuring that anticorruption and law enforcement agencies responsible for combating serious criminal activity are able to access investigative tools that are imperative to supporting their functions and also to making sure that criminals cannot keep their ill-gotten gains. I thank the support of the House for its passing.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.