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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (10) and (11):

(10)  Heading to Part 14, page 208 (lines 3 and 4), omit “Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity”, substitute “Australian Crime Commission”.

(11) Clause 212, page 208 (lines 8 to 10), omit all words after “means”, substitute “the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission established under Part III of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.”.

We also oppose clauses 213 and 214 in the following terms:

(12) Clauses 213 and 214, page 208 (line 12) to page 209 (line 22), TO BE OPPOSED.

These three amendments go to moving the parliamentary oversight of the commission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. It is a matter that I have raised. It was a matter that was in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee report. It would seem logical to have one parliamentary committee. On the one hand we have the government arguing this week to reduce the number of committees and on the other hand we have the government now seeking to expand and add an extra committee. I find myself on the side of saying let’s not waste public money on a committee that may only effectively have one agency to oversight—that is, the commission—and it may not be used very much at all.

It would be more logical to wrap it up with a parliamentary joint committee to deal with the wide range of work. The experience that it would gain from that would be significantly improved, I think, for the members. The ASIO committee is one such joint committee that has oversight of a range of bodies, and the members manage quite well to keep themselves abreast and provide cogent reports to this parliament. It would seem in this instance that it would be sensible to follow a similar path. I know that the government’s view is the opposite, that they prefer a single committee and an additional committee. I can only think perhaps they want the chair as an addition. I would be disappointed if that was their only view and only argument, but I have not been able to discern a better argument.