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

I'm sure most of the members in the House have a similar experience to mine when they go around the country and talk to Australians about what happens here in our parliament. The public see a parliament that's very divided, where we spend most of our time, according to them, yelling at each other across the chamber. That is what goes on a little bit in this House, but we have a lot of legislation that actually goes through this House with the agreement of all the political parties that are represented in the chamber.

It's been quite hard work to get the bill before us, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2017, to a point where Labor was supportive of it. There were some big issues, particularly with regard to custody notification, which is an area that protects Indigenous rights and Indigenous Australians who have been incarcerated for various reasons. But I have to say that we've worked with the Public Service and the government cooperatively and come to what I think is a good bill, and it's a bill that Labor will be supporting.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill before us relates to a range of changes to our criminal justice system. It includes the Australian Federal Police's abilities to cooperate with international organisations, the disclosure of information in the context of controlled operations, custody notification and the protection of vulnerable witnesses. It's a bill that demonstrates the commitment of both sides of Australian politics to keeping Australians safe.

Schedule 1 of the bill would amendment the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, to enable the AFP to assist or cooperate with an international organisation or a non-government organisation outside Australia in relation to the provision of police services or police support services. In plain English, what we're talking about here is the fact that crime in our community is becoming very transnational. In the discussions I have with law enforcement, they're continually raising this issue with me. Many crimes—whether it is fraud, child exploitation or human trafficking and slavery, all the things that the AFP in particular deal with—are starting to have a transnational aspect. This means that the Australian Federal Police must be able to work effectively with international organisations. According to the Australian Federal Police, somewhere around 70 per cent of our serious criminal threats now have an international dimension. Allowing the AFP to assist organisations overseas is a sensible change and Labor will support it.

Of course, laws are very important to the prevention of crime, but they don't mean too much to Australians if they're not properly enforced. Alongside a commitment to continue to strengthen the law that supports the work that the AFP does, that same commitment needs to be extended by the government to the resourcing of the Australian Federal Police. Last month at Senate estimates, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police confirmed that the government's most recent budget contains a $205 million cut to resourcing of the Australian Federal Police over the forward estimates. We're pleased to see a bill like this that provides opportunities for the AFP to do its work more seamlessly around the world, but—I say again—it's not much good when the AFP is seeing its staff and budget cut by this government.

The AFP commissioner in Senate estimates was able to confirm that staffing at the AFP is predicted to fall from 6,448 personnel in 2018-19, to 5,881 personnel in 2021-22. That is a pretty extraordinary reduction of 567 cops over the next four years, and I am very concerned to see the government implementing that reduction. Labor will support this aspect of the bill and the measures it contains to assist the Australian Federal Police, but we do remain really concerned about the ability of this organisation to do work that is growing in importance and, I have to say, growing in magnitude because of the some of the threats that we face as a country.

Schedule 4 of the bill would increase the maximum penalty for breaches of the general dishonesty offences contained in the Criminal Code. That increase would see the maximum penalty go from five years imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment. The rationale behind the change is we believe a good one; it is to align the sentencing of dishonesty offences with similar offences contained in the Criminal Code, and we absolutely believe the courts need the flexibility to give stronger penalties to serious crimes like this. There was a concern raised in the Senate committee process, and one that Labor shared, which was about increasing maximum penalties. One of the ways this parliament can give a message to our justice system, to the court system, is by raising the maximum penalty. That can sometimes indicate to the judiciary that we believe that sentencing generally for this particular crime is not enough. That's not why this law is being changed today. We were pleased to receive confirmation from the government that it will be made clear by the minister that the intention of increasing the maximum penalty in this instance is not to target offenders at the lower level of offending; it is to target people at the very upper end of offending, who would be receiving a longer jail sentence if they were convicted under a similar but different federal law.

Legal Aid New South Wales was one of the organisations that engaged very constructively in the Senate committee process and they were very concerned about this change, prior to the clarification being received. They argued that increasing the penalties for these offences would disproportionately and unfairly impact on vulnerable people being prosecuted for social security fraud. I met with the government and raised these concerns. We are pleased that the minister has clarified that, in his summing up speech, he will make it clear that it's not parliament's intention that the maximum penalty be placed on the lower level of offending for this offence.

I want to turn now to the crucially important aspect of the bill before us, which is some changes that have been made to the custody notifications scheme in the Crimes Act. Custody notification is a crucial way that we manage what is a far too high incidence of incarceration of Aboriginal Australians. Custody notification requirements ensure that law enforcement let lawyers know when they question a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin in custody. We know that custody notification saves lives. We're very lucky on this side of the House to have Senator Patrick Dodson, who is in the other place. He has been engaged in this question of the incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians for many, many decades—for longer than I have been alive. He was part of the royal commission that initially looked into Aboriginal deaths in custody, and the custody notification that exists under Australian law today came, in part, through a recommendation of that royal commission.

The change that has been suggested in the bill seeks to amend a drafting error that was in our Commonwealth custody notification obligations. It came to light through a case that went through the ACT court system, a 2013 case called R v CK. What that showed was that investigating officials under the technical reading of this law were actually not required to notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation before they commenced questioning. It became apparent that there was this ambiguity about the exact timing of when an Aboriginal legal organisation had to be notified and whether the Indigenous person had to be held for the duration of their wait for a lawyer. Would a phone call at two o'clock in the morning that left a voice mail, for example, suffice under the act? Labor took a pretty strong view on this. We want to make it absolutely certain that Indigenous people who are incarcerated have all of their rights adequately protected. That's why we sat down with the government and tried to, in a really substantial way, look at amendments that could make this area of law much clearer.

Custody notification schemes can't be watered down, and I am very pleased with the fact that the government has agreed to make some big changes to this area of the bill. Labor senators were able to draft additional comments which outlined Labor's concerns with the bill as originally drafted, and we can see that the minister has made amendments to the bill that will go through the House and that will ensure that absolute notification requirements remain in the bill. I think it's really good news. It's great to have this area of the law clarified.

I say to people again: you see a lot of frustrations in this parliament, but here we have a legislative process that is actually working properly. The government did want to make changes to custody notifications. I don't think there is anyone in this parliament who doesn't agree there are issues with Indigenous incarceration rates and the treatment of Aboriginal people in jail. We certainly, as a parliament, don't want to be making that problem worse. There are many things we could be doing to make it better, but, certainly, we don't want to make the problem worse, and I'm pleased to see that the bill before us won't do that.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, the Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT), the Law Council of Australia, Legal Aid New South Wales, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services for their work fighting for the retention of these important obligations.

I want to say a couple of things about why custody notification matters so much. I think most Australians are aware that there is massive over-representation of first nation Australians in jails around Australia. In 1991, first nation Australians constituted 14 per cent of our prison population. In 2017, 25 years later, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners accounted for 27 per cent of the total Australian prisoner population. That is a national crisis and a national tragedy.

I'm very lucky to have next to me the member for Barton, one of our nation's foremost First Nations leaders. This is something that we are acutely aware of. We need to do more as a parliament to try to arrest this problem. There is a major issue if a community represents somewhere around three or five—or a little bit more—per cent of our population but a quarter of all Australian prisoners. There is something utterly wrong with how we are managing this area of policy and this very important population of people who represent the oldest living culture in the world. There's more that we as Australians can do to show our pride in that culture, to recognise the extraordinary generosity of First Australians in their willingness to share their culture with us, but we need to change the tone of how we've approached this problem. To see issues like Indigenous incarceration get worse over the last 25 years—and get worse when so many people have, I think, with full hearts tried to address some of these issues—means we really need to stop and have a think about how we're doing things.

One of the things that I know the member for Barton has been showing huge leadership on, nationally and within our caucus, is the importance of giving Indigenous Australians a voice in the national conversation about issues that affect them. When I look at the problem of Indigenous incarceration, when I look at some of the other issues that First Nations people face, I see that we must provide the leadership this community needs—provide them with a platform and a voice to tell us what they want us to focus on and how we're going to work our way out of some of these issues—because what we've done to date is clearly not working, when 25 per cent of all Australians in jail are First Australians. It's not good enough, and we need to do a lot more.

Before I finish, I want to briefly touch on schedule 6 of the bill before us, which would strengthen the protections for vulnerable people in part IAD of the Crimes Act—for example, child witnesses and vulnerable adult complainants giving evidence in particular criminal proceedings. Vulnerable witnesses and complainants are often giving evidence regarding truly shocking crimes. The federal Crimes Act deals with some of the most heinous human rights violations, and often those violations are done to people who are incredibly vulnerable, who are dependents or children. It's critically important that we provide people who are willing to testify against their perpetrators with every protection that we can through the criminal justice process. Labor is absolutely committed to protecting vulnerable witnesses. In government, Labor passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Act 2013. The measures in the bill before us will build on these reforms, and Labor is very proud to be supporting them.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to speak too long on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I want to stand to reiterate and reaffirm the comments made by the member for Hotham, the shadow minister for justice, particularly around the bipartisanship shown in this process and in many of the processes around law enforcement. As the shadow minister for justice mentioned, Labor supported this bill with some very important amendments. It is an omnibus bill, which does several things. I won't go through all of them, but I want to focus on a few. The first one of those is the recognition of the importance of the Australian Federal Police in international cooperation, particularly around serious and organised crime. Serious and organised crime is becoming increasingly transnational, and our very top-notch and very capable law enforcement here in Australia has a strong role to play regionally in stopping international and transnational crime.

I'll just give you an example of how this kind of crime works. It is also particularly important to have regional and international cooperation in an era of new and emerging communications technologies, where criminals are taking advantage of that. They're able to coordinate using the dark web and encryption services across and between countries. An example of that was an Indonesian terror cell that used cryptocurrencies. First of all, they used some hacking devices to obtain the credit card information of people in one country, and then they sold that credit card information to people in third and fourth countries for cryptocurrencies. With this kind of technology-enabled crime, they managed to raise US$600,000 for a potential terrorist attack. That's just one example, but it highlights the importance of having a well-equipped law enforcement agency that can work internationally in this space.

As the shadow minister for justice quite eloquently mentioned, law enforcement is not just a matter of having a strong legislative framework; it's also very important that agencies are well resourced. Their capabilities are also very important. So this is about not just putting in place the legislative framework that enables law enforcement agencies to do the kind of work that they need to but ensuring that they are fully resourced and have the capabilities in order to ensure that as well. When funding is cut, that capability is compromised, and the work that they are able to do in stopping international and transnational serious and organised crime through these cooperative measures that are outlined in this bill is also compromised.

I also want to speak about another important amendment—again, reiterating what our shadow minister for justice said. That important amendment is on the custody notification issue. The bill alters the custody notification obligations of investigation officials when they intend to question an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. As originally drafted, before we worked through these amendments in a bipartisan fashion as we did, the bill would actually have removed the absolute requirement to notify an Aboriginal legal aid organisation. The intent should have been to amend a drafting error that was brought to light in a case that the previous speaker mentioned It was a drafting error in the Crimes Act that, in effect, meant that investigating officials were not required to notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation or person before commencing questioning. This meant that the custody notification rules, which were originally intended to be an absolute requirement to notify, would have been scaled back to a requirement to take reasonable steps to notify and then a two-hour wait. The shadow minister for justice highlighted some of the difficulties with having reasonable steps and what qualifies as reasonable steps and then a two-hour wait.

As stakeholders noted, there are many reasons why an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation may not be able to respond immediately to a notification, so these proposed changes might have left individuals without those very important protections. What would have happened, had the bill gone through without the amendments that were recommended, is a watering-down of the notification provisions of the Crimes Act, which should protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So we're very happy that that didn't happen, that the amendments that we suggested were worked through, again, in a bipartisan manner and that those changes were made. We proposed amendments to protect the absolute obligation to notify an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation, and we called on the government to implement nationwide custody notification services.

I do want to mention and add something here that's not in the bill but that I think has been an issue, in particular for Western Australia but also around Australia. In the circumstances of the arrest and incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, an issue has been access to interpreting services. There has been a lack of qualifications in determining whether or not somebody needs an interpreting service in a justice environment, an assumption that if somebody speaks English then they can comprehend and perform within a justice environment and a misunderstanding of the actual standards that would require access to an interpreting service. Apart from that, in Western Australia there has been a decimation of the Aboriginal translating and interpreting service. If we're talking about notifications and if we are looking at a more comprehensive approach, I think it's very important to mention here in this debate the need for more access to interpreting and translating services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in justice settings.

The bill contains a number of other measures. I won't go through all of them, but it does contain strengthened protections for vulnerable witnesses and complainants in Commonwealth criminal proceedings in the Crime Act. I will just mention that Labor are committed to protection for the vulnerable. In government we passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Act in 2013. That provided protection for vulnerable witnesses giving evidence in proceedings for Commonwealth criminal offences and a scheme to enable the use of victim impact statements in the sentencing of federal offenders. We were proud to build on that wonderful work that we did in 2013 and support these additional protections as they are in the bill.

Schedule 3 of the bill creates separate offence regimes for insiders and outsiders for the disclosure of information relating to controlled operations in the Crimes Act. The terms 'insiders' and 'outsiders' do not refer to separate television shows on two different networks—just to be clear! The intention of these amendments was to bring AFP-controlled operations in line with the offences for disclosure of ASIO special intelligence operations, which makes sense. The changes in schedule 3 will mirror section 35P of the ASIO Act, which was amended in 2015 to introduce lesser penalties for outsiders than for insiders who disclose ASIO special intelligence operations.

There are a number of other measures. Considering this is the third reading debate, I won't go into them. But I will just close by again reiterating the importance of a couple of things—the first being bipartisan support, particularly on law enforcement. We are happy with this bill and we're proud to support this bill, given the amendments that were recommended and the acceptance of those amendments. That's the first thing I want to highlight. The second thing is just to reiterate again the importance of legislative reform that allows law enforcement to do its job and keep in mind and keep an eye on ensuring that they also have the capabilities to take advantage of a robust legislative framework. Those capabilities are intrinsically tied to resourcing and to the level of funding that we give to our Federal Police. I commend our law enforcement agencies. They do a wonderful job. But, increasingly, they are asked to do that job with fewer and fewer resources.

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

I, too, won't take too much time, given that agreement has been reached on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I commend the minister, as well as the shadow minister, on working in a bipartisan fashion to deliver the best results as it applies to law enforcement. I spent many years prior to entering this place representing the interests of police officers, state and federal. So I take an interest in issues of law enforcement generally. The bill before us is an omnibus bill that covers many, many things. I was initially going to speak about two aspects of this bill—namely schedule 2, in terms of the issues of notification when wishing to question or when arresting persons of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage; and schedule 3 of the bill, dealing with insider and outsider disclosures.

In terms of schedule 2, we have a very strong view—which I'm very happy to say the minister has now embraced—about notification being mandatory. By the way, the mandatory notifications in respect of the questioning of Aboriginal persons came out of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, so there was not any prospect that we saw of watering down those provisions. There would be no utility in it and no practical purpose. It would, regrettably, cause us to bring ourselves back into disrepute by flying in the face of the commissioner's recommendation coming out of that royal commission. So I'm glad that that has been resolved.

The second aspect that I wanted to speak a little on was controlled operations. Having represented police at both state and federal levels, I've been particularly involved in controlled operations, and many aspects had to be negotiated over a long period of time. At one stage, controlled operations were a little footloose and fancy free, without providing the proper protection for officers. Fortunately, that has now long since been remedied. But the issue of disclosure does raise some concern. The bill creates the new offences of insider- and outsider-initiated disclosures. Within the law enforcement community, we would take a very dim view of an insider disclosing any aspect of a controlled operation. The bill would make a distinction between that and—I know this has been negotiated between the government and the opposition—for instance, a journalist reporting in the public interest on a police-controlled operation or a police operation by the AFP. Making that distinction in the provision of schedule 3, I think, is a good thing and one which I would support.

When talking about policing, we inevitably start talking about police resourcing. It is of concern that the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Colvin, at the last Senate estimates was able to confirm a $205 million cut to resourcing for the AFP over the forward estimates. Any cut to the resourcing of law enforcement should be a concern to everyone; not just to those who wear the uniform. According to the AFP predictions, that would mean a fall in personnel from 6,448 in this financial year to 5,881 in 2021-22. That's an extraordinary reduction in AFP staff of 567—I'm not saying that's 567 police officers, it's also staff of the AFP.

This is coupled with the fact that the government has taken almost 2½ years to resolve a wages deal for those on the thin blue line. Police officers of the AFP have waited 2½ years in truncated negotiations to resolve a wages deal. It is right that we regard our police highly. The men and women who are prepared to put themselves into harm's way need all the support we can give them. It is also right that they should be heavily scrutinised, because we are going to continually give more and more powers to police. They support that level of increased scrutiny, more so than anyone else in public life. Yet when it comes to wages, they are treated vastly differently. The government waited 2½ years to settle a wage claim for police officers. These are the people that we put on the frontline, the people who are on shifts from one day to the next, with the preparedness to put their lives on the line for the benefit of fellow Australians, and we treat them like that. I think that is thoroughly reprehensible.

I briefly take the opportunity to advise the House that we are approaching the inaugural Police Week, which will be in September this year. The event aims to draw the policing community together to participate in honour of those officers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and also to celebrate the wonderful work being done by police officers and law enforcement generally throughout the country. Australia's Police Week 2018 will draw together supporters of policing from across every state and territory in a range of formal and informal activities. It is envisaged that Police Week will become a major event on the law enforcement calendar in the future. While the focus will be on the National Police Memorial in Canberra from 15 to 29 September, jurisdictions across the country will also be holding very separate and specific events in their own states and territories. One such event is the Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance, which will see over 2,000 police officers and their supporters from around Australia participate in a motorcycle ride en masse to the nation's capital, ending at the National Police Memorial in Kings Park on 15 September this year. This will be the second year that I haven't actually participated in that ride, for reasons that members would no doubt appreciate, but it is a very significant event. It is now in its ninth year. It's to remember fallen colleagues, to raise money for police charities, particularly Police Legacy, and to promote safe and legal motorcycling. To date we have raised over $800,000 for Police Legacy through our participation in that event.

I also advise the House that the fourth annual National Policing Summit will also be held during Police Week, on 17 and 18 September at the Hyatt Hotel. The summit will bring together police from every jurisdiction, along with various government departments and agencies, and strategic analysts, to discuss a range of police reforms and service delivery issues in a rapidly changing law enforcement space. I would also like draw the attention of the House to the inaugural National Police Bravery Awards. They will be held in Canberra on 19 September at the National Museum. The National Police Bravery Awards will recognise exceptional acts of bravery undertaken by the country's serving police officers. The awards will be specifically developed as an award to police officers recognised by fellow police officers, transcending all states and jurisdictional divides, making the recipients truly recognised as national heroes.

Finally, we will have the 22nd annual Police Federation of Australia council meeting in Canberra on 20 and 21 September. One of the key aspects of the council's meeting this year is police officers' mental wellbeing. Last year the PFA was able to access a proceeds of crime grant to help educate officers and those around them of the risks and the early warning signs to support police officers with mental health issues. Despite all the advances that have been made in this space, there's a lot more work that needs to be done, particularly in raising awareness, in understanding, in prevention and in destigmatising mental health in law enforcement. A major thrust is to break down the stigma attached to emotional illnesses and for officers to feel more comfortable about being able to come forward and advise their superiors when they have an issue.

On Friday, 28 September, National Police Remembrance Day observances will be held around the country, and specifically at the National Police Memorial here in Canberra. It's an opportunity for all of us to show our support for police officers and our support for not only those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf but also those who are prepared to go to work day in, day out and face danger at our expense. I've learnt over a long period of time that it takes a special type of person with a special type of bravery to wear the police uniform, and we are extremely indebted to those who choose to do so. They are prepared to face dangers that, thankfully, most of us will never have to encounter. For those who are prepared to wear the police uniform, we should take the opportunity this September to show that we honour and respect them.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on this bill, which will make significant improvements to Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements. The bill has been considered in detail by several parliamentary committees. I thank those committees for their contributions and confirm that the government has amended the explanatory memorandum and the bill to implement recommendations emanating from committee consideration of the bill. I also take the opportunity to thank the opposition for their cooperation.

This bill will bolster the Commonwealth's ability to combat fraud and corruption. The measures in the bill will enable the Commonwealth to gather necessary personal information to clamp down on corrupt officials and those who defraud the Commonwealth. Personal information will be able to be collected and disclosed to or within the Commonwealth and where it is necessary for an integrity purpose. These measures are appropriate and contain appropriate safeguards to protect privacy. The amendments only apply to serious misconduct or substantial fraud and require that any guidelines made on the operation of the measures be approved by the Information Commissioner.

The bill amends the sections of the Crimes Act dealing with offences for disclosing information relating to controlled operations. These amendments will reduce restrictions placed on ordinary citizens, introducing new elements that must be proven before a member of the community can be convicted of a disclosure offence. The government understands the importance of maintaining public awareness of and confidence in the activities of our law enforcement agencies. The decision to provide additional protections for members of the community demonstrates our commitment to achieving the right balance between freedom of expression and our national security and law enforcement requirements.

The government has amended the explanatory memorandum to clarify the intended interaction between the Commonwealth controlled operation offences and state and territory offences, in response to a recommendation published in the Bills Digest that considered the bill. The bill clarifies the timing of the requirement that investigating officials who intend to question an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander in relation to a Commonwealth or ACT offence must contact an Aboriginal legal assistance organisation before starting their questioning. This will give full effect to a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody upon which the relevant provision in the Commonwealth Crimes Act is based. This was always the original intention of the legislative requirement, but was cast into doubt by an ACT Supreme Court case. The bill will end this uncertainty and will strengthen an important protection for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in custody.

The government will introduce amendments to remove the 'reasonable steps' requirement in response to concerns expressed in submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The bill also strengthens the Commonwealth's vulnerable witness protections. The bill will introduce amendments requiring that applicants seeking leave from the court to publish matters likely to identify vulnerable persons must notify relevant parties to the original proceeding prior to that application being heard.

The bill will increase the maximum penalty for general dishonesty offences in the Criminal Code from five years imprisonment to 10 years imprisonment. This will ensure that the courts have the ability to address high-level offending that falls within the parameters of these offences. It will also ensure that penalties for criminal conduct of a similar nature are consistent across the Criminal Code. This amendment was a key recommendation from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to the Senate committee inquiry into penalties for white-collar crime, which reported in 2017.

Contrary to concerns raised in submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, this will not have a disproportionate effect on welfare recipients who have been charged with minor fraud offences. Increasing the maximum penalty will allow judges to address higher level offending. It does not follow that higher sentences will be imposed on lower level offending. The bill will expand the functions of the Australian Federal Police to enable them to provide assistance and facilitate cooperation with international organisations and non-government organisations in relation to the provision of police services or police support services.

The amendments will ensure that the AFP can exchange information with international organisations made up of multiple member countries—for example, the International Criminal Court, ad hoc international war crimes tribunals and Interpol. The amendments ensure the AFP can cooperate effectively with requests for assistance from international organisations in response to an increasingly global criminal threat. The government has amended the explanatory memorandum to include further analysis of the privacy implications of these amendments, responding to a recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The bill also amends the Commonwealth's spent convictions regime to remove impediments that currently prevent the New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission from using spent convictions information to vet employees and investigate serious misconduct and corruption in particular circumstances.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that, subject to the government elaborating on two issues in explanatory materials, the bill be passed. The government has tabled a further addendum to the explanatory memorandum, and government amendments to address the committee's recommendations. This bill has clearly been considered in detail and, as a result, represents a balanced approach to amending our criminal justice frameworks and practices. This bill will strengthen Australia's criminal justice framework and provide our law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers they need to do their job. It will ensure Commonwealth laws, as well as protections and safeguards, are robust and effective.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.