David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, that is good. I would like to hear you say that so that you can correct the record of all the things that you said about what the government is seeking to do in regard to that which are clearly incorrect. I suppose that just highlights one of the important things that people should understand with respect to these sorts of powers, which is, of course, that these are not powers that the opposition relate to or understand. Indeed, we have had 10 years for the opposition to come forward with any proposal, particularly after September 11, to deal with national security and, of course, all we have is a vacuum of inane carping with no leadership and no policy whatsoever.

This bill addresses problems relating to the conduct of organised criminal networks which operate with ease and dexterity across jurisdictional borders, including international borders and state borders. Contemporary policing requires law enforcement agencies to undertake investigations that extend beyond the boundaries of any one jurisdiction. To address this increasing threat, it is critical that the Australian government adopt this model legislation. The creation of a national set of investigative powers facilitates seamless law enforcement across the jurisdictions. I pause to state that for many years now the states have had late notification search warrant powers, all of which have gone unheralded and uncommented upon. But, of course, when the federal government seeks to enact such powers, the opposition suggests there is something wrong in that. Indeed, the playing of politics and point scoring with matters as important as this is something which I think the opposition can take absolutely no credit in.

The addition of delayed notification search warrants also brings an important investigative power to police that will enable them to adequately respond to, prevent and investigate terrorist activity and other serious offences. The opposition says that the definition of serious offences in sections 8 and 9 is too broad. Of course, we know that the definition commences with offences that carry 10 years or more imprisonment—given that tag, title and qualification, they are obviously very serious offences. Also the defining section of serious offences says sections 8 and 9 of the Crimes Act—foreign incursion and recruitment—which, of course, relates to persons who engage in hostile activities with the intention of overthrowing a foreign state or engaging in armed hostilities in the foreign state. I would have thought those provisions were very serious, but the opposition says they are too broad. I would have thought that it was a very serious offence if we had a group of people onshore in Australia seeking to overthrow a government of another country. It is interesting that the opposition cannot see that.

The definition section of serious offences goes on to talk about sections 20 and 21 of the Charter of the United Nations, and those sections deal with wrongfully dealing in freezable assets. The United Nations can freeze assets of companies breaching trade sanctions and undertaking unauthorised activity in circumstances where there are human rights abuses, and the UN can prohibit dealing with them. But the opposition says, ‘Oh no, that’s all right; that’s too broad.’ I would have thought that, given what we have seen with respect to a whole group of matters of recent times in breaching prohibitions on trade sanctions, it would not have been too broad.

Further, the definition sets out serious offences as set out in sections 147.2, 147.2(3), 474.11(2) and 474.15(2) of the Criminal Code as serious offences. Those offences are offences related to threatening to cause harm to a public official. How on earth could that be too broad? It is patently obvious that the opposition is soft on crime here or has not read or understood the bill. A further serious offence set out is using a postal service to make a threat, again a very serious matter. Also, a serious offence is using a carriage service to make a threat. Police have indicated that a delayed notification search warrant will be particularly beneficial during an investigation into such offences when the threat has originated from a syndicate—for example, an extremist political group—where police do not want to alert the syndicate that they have been identified. These are matters of logic that flow with any understanding of the way police conduct operations. Sadly, the opposition in this chamber has no real understanding and, of course, this is not the core understanding of the Australian Labor Party—not that they have much understanding of anything at all. But the point here is that to say that these definitions are too broad is to completely misconceive what is sought to be done by these matters. I would like to hear Senator Ludwig say on the record again that these matters are too broad, because we are talking about people-trafficking, sexual slavery and a whole host of other similar offences which are caught by the definition section.

At the end of the day, these definitions and these police powers are vitally needed. If you had any grasp or understanding of the way the police operate with respect to outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime in circumstances where these criminals have diverse assets and numerous places from which they can conduct their operations, particularly clandestine drug laboratories, you would understand that to raid or search one of those premises would, if you were to provide notice, tip off the broad network. But, of course, it would be too much to ask that the Labor Party understand how police conduct operations. Indeed, to suggest that ACLEI be responsible for Customs again shows a lack of understanding of what it means to have police powers in this country.

ACLEI is responsible for law enforcement integrity, which relates to the Australian Federal Police. Of course, the Australian Federal Police have extensive police powers of arrest and of being able to use lethal force in certain circumstances, and other powers of that nature. Again the opposition sit there, not having provided a single drop of policy on these very important matters, and want to take ACLEI further than it was originally legislated and designed to go. Obviously, in the circumstances of police powers, ACLEI going beyond that function is clearly bad policy.

These powers are important. It is very important that people who criticise them actually understand them and actually relate to why they are being used, and in circumstances where the bill has been read and the safeguards acknowledged. The safeguards here are extensive with respect to reporting from the Ombudsman, with respect to the commissioner granting original position and with respect to a judicial officer or member of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal granting the warrant in the first instance. These powers have enormous oversight and transparency but are vitally needed—and should be understood by the opposition—in circumstances where there are serious threats from a very dynamic and diverse group of organised criminals and from terrorism. The police need to be able to conduct operations without providing any assistance in the nature of a tip-off or explanation to people who would use such information to avoid prosecution. This bill does all of these things effectively and I commend it to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.