Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I want to make a couple of comments in regard to what the minister has said. Of course, Labor has indicated its support for the structure of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 and the cognate bills. They were some 10 years in fruition and are a significant step forward for the oversight of our law enforcement agencies. It is worth saying that we are at a point in this evening’s program where, because of time, we have to say what we want to say in a rather shorthand way. In doing so, as Senator Stott Despoja said, I think it does not detract from the importance of the legislation that is before us.

Having recognised the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s work and the number of recommendations that came from that, the government has picked up a range of those recommendations, and those recommendations do improve the bill. But the bill is still in need of further improvement, and the amendments that I will be moving this morning go to ensuring that the bill does in fact provide the level of oversight that is required.

I will speak to amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 4975, though they need to be moved separately. Under the model proposed by the coalition government, the integrity commissioner is only authorised to conduct an own-motion investigation into an issue relating to corruption in the AFP, the ACC or another agency that has a law enforcement function and is prescribed by the regulations as a law enforcement agency. This means that, unless the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 is substantially amended this morning, the minister will be able to add and subtract agencies, other than the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission, on a whim by mere regulation. That means that with the stroke of the minister’s pen agencies with law enforcement style powers, like ASIC, Customs and the Australian Taxation Office, could be placed beyond the jurisdictional reach of the commissioner. It is incredible that, when you look at the power that is provided here, the justice minister, Senator Ellison, seems set to ignore the recommendations against such a power which were proposed by the Senate committee dominated by government backbenchers. But, as parliament prepares to vote, the regulations are not public and the minister will not, as I understand it, commit to including other law enforcement agencies directly into the legislation. It is not for want of trying.

The proposal is not good public governance. In fact, it harks back to the 1970s when I worked under a government and I can recall an honest cop, Mr Ray Whitrod, being sacked for being just that. The types of structures we have today go to oversight that and ensure that there is good governance. I think this harks back in part and represents a bad example. But the discretionary power cannot possibly be in the public interest. It should not be there. The minister should abandon it before the bill is made law.

Amendment (1) proposes to remove the ability of the minister to change the jurisdiction of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission by regulation and, coupled with amendment (2), proposes to add the Customs Service, AUSTRAC and DIMA. I think the reasons are clear—and I will go into them briefly—in that, even if we take the Customs Service as an example, they now have substantial power under their legislation, they now carry arms, they now have significant intelligence-gathering mechanisms, they have intelligence databases and they have developed into a highly disciplined, worthwhile and accomplished service. That is not to say that there is any suspicion of corruption there—in fact, far from it: I do not think there has been much reported, although there have occasionally been issues such as that raised. It would seem logical to me to include them within the ambit of this particular bill. It is similar for AUSTRAC and DIMA, when you look at the range of powers that they have.

It is disappointing to find that at this hour we still have matters that could and should be addressed, and I think the practical reality is that they will not be addressed. The minister, I understand it, has given some undertakings to look at it. I think it needs more than that, quite frankly. I think the minister did have the ability to change it and include the agencies in there and not use a regulatory mechanism within the legislation. I think it detracts from it. It is a shame that we are in that position.