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

I spoke to amendments (1) and (2) together, as they go to the same issue. I now move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 4975:

Clause 5, page 8 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of law enforcement agency.

Question negatived.

I now move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 4975:

(2)    Clause 5, page 8 (after line 18), after paragraph (c) of the definition of law enforcement agency, insert:

           (ca)    the Australian Customs Service; or

           (cb)    the Australian Transactions Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC); or

           (cc)    the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; or

Question negatived.

We can move to amendment (8). You might note that there are a number of other amendments on the sheet. What occurred was that we had diligently gone through and developed amendments for the range of recommendations arising out of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. However, having lately discovered that the government had chosen to pick a range of those up, we will not need to move them in that sense. I move opposition amendment (8) on sheet 4975:

(8)    Clause 93, page 103 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:

False or misleading statements

        (6)    A person commits an offence if the person makes an oral or written statement to a hearing that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

This amendment deals with false or misleading statements to the law enforcement commission. This is one of those ones where I think again the government has chosen to adopt a penalty regime for offences against ACLEI that is substantially different from the regime employed under the Australian Crime Commission. Both bodies are in effect standing royal commissions, and there is a general principle that like should be treated as like. There is a proposed provision that, in the not unforeseeable event that an issue falls under the jurisdiction of both bodies because it involves both organised crime and the corrupting of an officer, a person who provides false or misleading statements to the ACC should receive a maximum penalty of five years compared with a maximum of only one year for an equivalent offence against the ACLEI under section 137.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Not only is it inconsistent with every offence listed in the proposed bill; it is also inconsistent with the broader application of the law when you consider the Australian Crime Commission.

The best Labor can do this morning with what you can only really describe as the hopeless situation which the government has foisted upon us is to move for the creation of a new offence which would at the very least make the ACLEI act consistent. We could suggest to the government that they have a good hard look at the proposal, consider the absurd situation I have just outlined in relation to the differential treatment that could occur between the Australian Crime Commission and ACLEI and take a considered examination themselves in their review of penalties—I understand that the penalties review is still open—to see whether it can be corrected through that process or whether we need a consequential amendment when the government comes back here with legislation amending this legislation. I certainly do not want to still be arguing this point three years on at the review.

It seems logical to me, unless the government can argue otherwise. Certainly in another place the ACC have argued themselves that the penalties under their provisions need review. I think the Attorney-General’s Department has also argued that in submissions to another committee that I am on in respect of the problem the Australian Crime Commission have in this area. This is one of those areas that does need a further look. I know that the government will not pick up the amendment but I am sure they will certainly have a hard look at it.