Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015 seeks to repeal the Criminology Research Act 1971 and amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. This bill abolishes the Australian Institute of Criminology as a statutory agency and merges its functions into the Australian Crime Commission to form a research branch, within the Australian Crime Commission, to be called the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has a long and proud history of undertaking and publishing world-class criminological research. John Vincent Barry, a lawyer, Supreme Court judge and pioneer of criminology in Australia, advocated for many years for the establishment of a national institute of criminology in Australia. His efforts came to fruition in 1970, when it was announced that such an institute was to be formed. The JV Barry Library, which is the most comprehensive library based collection in the field of criminology and criminal justice in Australia, was named after John Vincent Barry in recognition of his early work in this area.

The exact reasoning for this merger is still unclear. The Commission of Audit proposed that consideration be given to locating the AIC in a university. How we have ended up here, with a bill to merge the AIC with the ACC, is something only the government can adequately explain. I note that in the second reading speech in the other place, Minister O'Dwyer stated:

The Government sees great opportunity in combining the resources of the AIC and the ACC to provide Australian law enforcement agencies with central access to a consolidated and comprehensive criminal research and intelligence resource.

Having a unified resource of this type would significantly enhance support for law enforcement and bolster Australia's response to serious and organised crime.

The Greens have concerns that this is, in fact, much more of a takeover than a merger and will result in functions of the AIC being lost or subsumed. The first function of the AIC in the Criminology Research Act 1971 is 'to promote justice and reduce crime.' Nowhere in this legislation does it say that one of the functions of the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre will be to promote justice and reduce crime. In fact, when that is compared to the first function of the ACC in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, which is:

… to collect, correlate, analyse and disseminate criminal information and intelligence and to maintain a national database of that information and intelligence—

it is clear that we are dealing with organisations that have very different aims and very different functions. It seems bizarre to be merging two agencies which have very different aims and very different functions, particularly as the minister has stated that this merger is not about reducing costs.

Promoting justice and reducing crime is really important in Australia. A 2011 AIC report found the cost of crime in Australia is approximately $47.6 billion. This bill provides no guarantee that when the AIC becomes part of the ACC the depth and breadth of research currently undertaken by the AIC will continue. That was a common theme in many of the submissions to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. We heard on that committee from Professor Rick Sarre, president of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminologists, who stated in his evidence to the committee:

There is no doubt at all that the membership of our organisation would be with the maintenance of the status quo. I am very happy to say that.

The committee also heard from the acting director of Griffith Criminology Institute, Professor Janet Ransley, who stated in evidence to the committee:

I think once you put this research function in a law enforcement agency there is a capacity for it to be perceived as co-opted by law enforcement. It will lose that aura of independence. That would be a great shame for Australia.

The committee also heard concerns around the intent of combining the research function of the AIC with the law enforcement function of the ACC, whilst maintaining the current board structure of the ACC. Those concerns essentially were that the merger or the takeover, whilst maintaining the current board structure of the ACC, would diminish the research program currently undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminology. Again I will quote from Professor Janet Ransley, who stated in evidence to the committee:

The ACC board, as it is currently constituted—by my understanding—comprises largely law enforcement-related personnel from the states and territories and federal agencies. I think that is an inappropriate body to be setting research directions as we would understand criminological research. I think it does show a lack of understanding about the distinction between law enforcement-related intelligence gathering—which is a legitimate and important function—and criminological research, which is about understanding the underlying factors that contribute to and worsen or reduce crime. I think that is not a great solution, to have the board—as currently constituted—directing research. I think it would result in a diminution of the research function, and it would be a disaster, actually.

The Crime Prevention Council submitted to the committee that the AIC has been highly respected and valued as a source of sound research and advice. The council further submitted that the diminution of its research, publications, overseas assistance and conference-organising functions would have an adverse effect on Australia's criminal justice influence and role in the region. Civil Liberties Australia, in their submission to the committee, said that they believe 'domestic crime issues may be neglected given the national priorities of the ACC'. Professor Rick Sarre, the president of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, stated in his evidence to the committee on that issue:

If you are looking at crime prevention and bringing safety and security to our communities, anti-terrorism is one arm, and the sort of intelligence gathering that the ACC has done so well for so many years is another arm. But, if you are talking about community development and you are talking about education, health, housing, welfare—all those sorts of things—and the things that the sociologists and psychologists are telling us are the grave risks to our community development, an intelligence-gathering body is not likely to engage in that sort of behaviour.

It is fair to say that when these matters were put to representatives of the ACC at the committee hearings they indicated to the committee that they were aware of the concerns that had been raised. But it is worth noting that, in general terms, none of the concerns that were raised with the committee have been addressed in this legislation. It will be interesting to hear whether the minister is prepared to make any further statements on these matters during the debate here in the Senate today.

The Greens certainly believe that the domestic crime issues that were referred to by Civil Liberties Australia and Professor Sarre are very important for Australia. They include things like parole supervision and reoffending, preventing youth offending and reoffending, how we deal with people in the justice system with mental illness, and drink-driving prevention—just to name a few. These are many of the issues that no doubt all senators would hear about regularly in the so-called law and order debate in this country. These are bread-and-butter law and order issues. Ultimately, if we as a parliament want to reduce crime in Australia—and, of course, if you reduce crime there are fewer victims of crime and Australia will become a safer place—then we need to better understand why people commit crimes and, importantly, understand what strategies and responses we can put in place to reduce the level of crime in this country and to make Australians safer. That is a core function of the AIC, and that is one of the functions that will be placed at risk should this legislation pass through the parliament.

We have concerns relating to the future research direction of the ACC. Currently the AIC has an advisory board, the Criminology Research Advisory Council, which is made up of members from the states, territories and Commonwealth. This board advises the Director of the AIC on strategic research priorities. Should this legislation pass, the Criminology Research Advisory Council will no longer be a statutory body. Evidence was given that there is consideration being given to reconstituting that council in some form and having an advisory body exist within the ACC. However, it is worth pointing out that, if that is not detailed in legislation, it would be simply the stroke of an administrative pen to dissolve any new body. As we have heard, Professor Sarre and Professor Ransley both gave evidence to the committee outlining concerns in this area.

Fundamentally, the Greens believe that, should this bill pass, there is a significant risk that broad-ranging criminological research that focuses on understanding the causes of crime, recommending crime prevention strategies and informing policymakers will take second place to the law enforcement needs of the ACC—and I will place very firmly on the record that the Greens understand the law enforcement argument here around the ACC, and nothing we are saying should be taken to be critical of that law enforcement function. We have heard that one of the justifications for this legislation is around things like access to datasets and the JV Barry Library. Those concerns have been articulated, and the Greens have no reason to believe that those concerns are unfounded, but we would make the point very strongly today that concerns like that can be addressed through administrative actions, such as potentially an MOU between the ACC and the AIC, and that effectively, if those are the concerns that are driving this legislation, we are taking a sledgehammer to a walnut here by proposing what has been sold to us as a merger but what the Greens fear is more of a takeover of the AIC by the ACC. So we will be opposing this legislation.