Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023. The coalition is supportive of the intent of this bill. It is, however, ironic, given that this bill makes changes to a range of Commonwealth statutes that relate to law enforcement, oversight and related judicial processes, that the scrutiny processes around the bill itself have been less than satisfactory.

This bill should have been referred in its entirety to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, for scrutiny. It remains unclear why this did not happen. Instead, only a single technical provision of the bill relating to a change in the name of the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption was referred to the PJCIS. Understandably, the PJCIS declined to conduct an inquiry into an inconsequential amendment. It now seems that at the eleventh hour the government has realised its error and, at the urging of the coalition, will subject this bill to further scrutiny.

It is important that such a process of scrutiny is conducted because, while much of the bill is procedural, we are dealing with important and complicated matters relating to national security and criminal law, and there are some substantive changes. Any time that proposed legislation touches on such pieces of legislation as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act or the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act, as this bill does, it should be subject to careful scrutiny from a parliamentary committee such as the PJCIS to examine how the proposed changes will work in practice. Changes to legislation in these areas are too important not to put them through an appropriate process of scrutiny to understand any issues which may arise. The only way to do this is to hear from the agencies likely to be affected by the legislation. None of us, I'm sure, would want to see any unintended consequences baked into these acts.

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act allows eligible judges or nominated members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants, orders and approvals to use certain covert or coercive investigative powers. To provide oversight to this process, the governments of Victoria and Queensland have established public interest monitors, who can appear at hearings of applications for warrants and essentially act as a contradictor. The current legislation, however, prevents those public interest monitors from making submissions in relation to what are called part 5.3 supervisory orders—these are control orders, extended supervision orders and interim supervision orders—issued under part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, including orders being issued in relation to matters concerning terrorist offenders. The provisions in schedule 8 of this bill before the House will allow the public interest monitors in Victoria and Queensland to make submissions relating to part 5.3 supervisory orders. On the information available to the coalition it is unclear what impact, if any, this would have on those regimes. Of course, that would be an appropriate matter for a parliamentary committee to consider.

The bill before the House will also amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to close a loophole relating to the obligation imposed on reporting entities to register with AUSTRAC. Currently that obligation can only be enforced if AUSTRAC becomes aware of the failure to register within 12 months of the contravention. In addition, the amendments in schedule 1 will clarify that sensitive AUSTRAC information that is shared with partner agencies cannot then be produced to courts and tribunals by those agencies.

Finally, the amendments in schedule 1 will authorise the AUSTRAC chief executive officer to use computer programs, including automated programs, to take non-adverse administrative actions, such as registration renewals. Explanatory materials note the need for sophisticated internal business rules and quality assurance and refer to 'high-risk' decisions. It is again unclear what new risks, if any, would result from these changes, noting that the stated intention is to create efficiencies for AUSTRAC and for regulated entities. Again these provisions would benefit from the scrutiny that a parliamentary committee could provide.

Amendments to the Foreign Evidence Act in schedule 5 of the bill will mean that foreign evidence is no longer required to be certified by a 'judge, magistrate or officer' of the relevant country. Instead, the new provisions will provide that testimony can also be signed or certified by 'a person authorised to administer an oath or affirmation or put a person under an obligation to tell the truth' in or of the foreign country to which the request was made. The effect of this change will be that foreign evidence will be admissible in a wider range of circumstances.

Amendments proposed in schedule 6 of the bill will provide the Attorney-General with a discretionary power to refuse consent to a request or an application for transfer to or from Australia at an earlier stage in the process. This is intended to reduce procedural overheads associated with the international prisoner transfer process. Once again it would be appropriate for a parliamentary committee, such as the PJCIS, to scrutinise this proposed change.

Changes in schedule 9 of the bill before the House will allow the commissioner to suspend a person's participation in the National Witness Protection Program in circumstances where the participant requests it or where the commissioner forms the view that the participant has done or intends to do something that would limit their ability to protect and assist the participant. As is the case with the other changes of which I have spoken, scrutiny of this proposed change by a parliamentary committee would be desirable.

I repeat my earlier statement that the coalition are in agreement with the intent of the bill which is before the House. We will not oppose this bill, subject only to the evidence that comes out of a committee inquiry. I do state the principle that senators and members should not be asked to make changes to Australia's national security legislation or important parts of the Crimes Act without a full understanding of the impact of those changes. It is necessary and appropriate that members of this place and of the Senate are in a position to be fully informed about the effect of changes that would be made by legislation that we are asked to vote upon. It is for that reason that the coalition believes it is appropriate that the bill, in its totality, should be subject to review by a parliamentary committee, such as the PJCIS. I repeat that while the coalition is supportive of the intent of this bill, naturally we would consider the evidence that comes out of the appropriate parliamentary inquiry in finalising that position.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.