Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015 and add my words to those of previous speakers. We would all share the principle in this parliament and throughout the wider community that every effort must be made to contain, diminish and, of course, reduce the impact on victims of crimes, to bring those responsible for crime to account, and to reduce the massive impact that crime has in our community. Figures of $36 billion a year were mentioned. I think Senator McKim a moment ago mentioned the figure of $47.6 billion. So I lend my voice to any move that is likely to lead to better understanding of crime and study of crime in this country and, of course, all of those efforts to prevent it in the first place or to identify those responsible, bring them to account and reduce the impact on victims and on the community. As the minister in the other place said in her concluding remarks:

This bill implements an important consolidation of Australia's criminal research and intelligence capabilities. With the merger of the AIC into the ACC, the ACC will be better able to fulfil its role as Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, supporting and informing the efforts of law enforcement agencies around Australia.

Similarly, the new Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre in the ACC will continue to prepare and disseminate world-leading criminological research which informs our understanding of the trends and developments in crime and justice.

We have heard differing views on whether or not there is likely to be a diminution in the role of criminological research in this country. I would urge and hope that there will not. What I would think will be is a part of the thought process behind this move of merging the AIC into the ACC: that we end up with far more effect in terms of the work of the ACC without in any way reducing the effectiveness of criminological research. It will bring together two of the nation's leading authorities on crime and justice under the one banner.

The overall objective, of course, is to create a unified workforce that will incorporate the staff of both agencies to the mutual benefit of not only the Australian community but of the staff them themselves—and I will come back to the impact on staff in a few minutes. The prediction and the advice to government is that this type of unification of the resources will significantly enhance support for law enforcement in this country, bolster our response to serious and organised crime and help us to better understand the causes and the research mechanisms by which we can prevent major crime in this country. And, of course, we would expect to see enhanced evidence supporting a proactive and targeted response to crime by all of Australia's law enforcement agencies.

The staff are critically important to the move being undertaken. Their wellbeing has been a prime consideration throughout the development of the proposal. And there will be significant benefits to the staff of both agencies: the simple fact of being able to work more collaboratively in a closer environment and the capacity to be able to move within the organisation—as one in the research space sees the desire to further their own career progression, for example, in the actual work of the ACC. And, again, the ability of people whose main focus has been the responsibilities of the Crime Commission and who may actually develop an interest in the research space being able to move seamlessly, either permanently or on a project-by-project basis, into the research space must surely be of enormous benefit to the staff.

Equally, it has been important to provide the staff with a degree of certainty, as there have been questions about the possible co-location and merging of the two. That, of course, will happen should this legislation be passed. The question has been asked—and quite fairly—whether the independence of AIC research will be compromised in any way as a result of this merger. The understanding that has very clearly being given to me is, 'No, there will be no diminution on the impact of research.' The AIC would carry its research functions over to the ACC, forming the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre, headed by a senior criminologist and research specialist. I have no doubt that those with a keen interest in this space will be watching carefully to see how that process of selection is undertaken, to make sure that we do indeed have the services of an internationally-acclaimed criminologist and research specialist.

The ACC and the AIC agreed on this structure following consultation with the AIC's stakeholders. It is important to understand that. State and territory justice agencies, external criminology researchers and they themselves have emphasised—as indeed has been quoted by others this morning—the need for the AIC group, or the now Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre, to remain an independent research unit within the ACC. I have heard nothing and seen nothing that indicates a desire of government in any way to reduce either that independence or its excellence. In fact, I hope and expect we will see an enhancement of the research activities as a result of closer cooperation.

The Crime and Justice Research Centre's priorities will continue to be influenced by an advisory body similar to the current Criminology Research Advisory Council. The question of whether or not there will be a diminution as a result of that body no longer being a statutory body has been asked. I, for one in this place, would want to make sure that at all times there will be that level of independence and excellence. Should there ever be a case where that body's independence or its excellence is in any way diminished, I for one and others in this place would want to know about it, we would want an explanation from government and we would want a correction to that, so important is the issue.

There will be a broadening to include police representatives to reflect the important role the ACC plays in Australian law enforcement. There may be some who would say, 'Is that going to adversely impact the independence, excellence or direction of research?' Again, I certainly hope that it would not and that in fact it would only enhance, focus and act as a conduit for those police and other representatives to take back to their organisations a better understanding of the direction of research being undertaken and, indeed, the outcomes of research.

There is always a question in these cases: is this in some way an attempt to actually reduce funding? With the scourge of the increase in crime in this country and the impact of crime on the Australian community, both in physical terms of victims and in terms of the budget, one would hope there would not be a reduction of research funding. One would hope that in this merger we would actually see a greater focus on the need for supporting research. There will be an ethics committee to oversee the activities of the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre, as indeed an ethics committee currently oversees the role of the AIC.

Where are the benefits for both? I expect that there will be and I expect that the minister, if need be, would expand on them. AIC staff should have better and further access to classified information available now to the ACC agency members. If that informs their research activities, if it gives them guidance in the directions in which research ought to be undertaken or if, indeed, there is the plea that they require further funding, the fact that they should have access to classified information should be of benefit. It will enable them to develop better informed and targeted research to be of greater value to law enforcement and justice agencies. Again, you would think that nobody in the Australian community—nobody of law-abiding nature, anyhow—would argue with that objective. A merger will provide ACC with a specialist research capability that will support the development of evidence-based responses to serious and organised criminal threats. It should be able to do so more seamlessly and more quickly and be able to respond in a very much more effective and efficient way.

A merger, should the legislation be passed, will provide significant opportunities to the staff of what are now the two agencies by providing diversity in the type of work they can undertake and the professional opportunities available to them. I made mention of that earlier in my contribution. I can very firmly see the benefits to staff in a merged organisation where they can move to those areas in which they develop interest and in which they may want and be able to go on with higher qualifications and then from the ACC side, should they then have undertaken that research, to look at the value and the benefit of that person in their career coming back into the law enforcement side so that they can give greater effect to that work.

I want to conclude my comments by talking about one area in which I know the ACC is active, and in which I understand AIC undertakes significant research. It is what some are referring to as the pandemic—not the epidemic—of crystal methamphetamine in this country. In 2014, as a result of surveys it was estimated that 2.5 per cent of all Australians over the age of 14—that is, half a million people—had used methamphetamine at least once during that year.

I will put that into perspective by comparing it to other countries. The 2.5 per cent of Australians 14 years and older who had tried methamphetamine at least once in a year equates to 0.5 percent in the United States, Britain and Canada—countries to which we are often compared. That means that five times the number of people in our country in 2014 had used crystal methamphetamine—an illegal drug. Therefore we have in Australia—anecdotally we know this—a very severe issue. It is an area in which the ACC is active. Hopefully the AIC, reformed, would also have the resources to undertake the necessary research.

I will drill a little further into this issue. In Victoria, the Coroner's office reported in 2010 that one in every 25 drug related deaths was due to crystal meth or ice. Two years later—in 2012—the Victorian Coroner's office reported that the number was one in 10. Last September, the Medical Journal of Australia published a study of the Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre that showed a 318 per cent increase in hospitalisations from 2010-11 to 2011-12—in one year—in Melbourne as a result of issues associated with overdose and use of crystal methamphetamine. That figure of 318 per cent surely points to a greater need for a greater emphasis and better coordinated activity in our crime research, crime prevention and crime treatment, in order to reverse this evil trend.

A study undertaken by the Institute of Criminology of detainees in police stations around the nation found that 61 per cent of those held in the Kings Cross Police Station in Sydney tested positive to methamphetamine, 40 per cent held in Brisbane City Police Station tested positive to methamphetamine, and 43 cent of those in the watch house in my home city of Perth tested positive.

I will conclude with the words of the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission, Paul Jevtovic. In a forward to a report, The Illicit Drug Data Report 2012-13, which was released about 15 months ago, he wrote

… with its relative accessibility, affordability and destructive side-effects, crystal methylamphetamine is emerging as a pandemic akin to the issue of ‘crack’ cocaine in the United States.

In this place we share the view of the wider honourable community of this country that the use of illicit drugs and the crime that stems from that—the need to fund such an addiction by stealing or through some other means—must be addressed and attacked.

The bill that we see today has the objective of bringing together the national criminal intelligence analysis and research capabilities of the AIC, the Australian Institute of Criminology, and the ACC. I realise the reservations that have been expressed by the previous speaker and from eminent and highly regarded specialists in this field, criminologist Professor Rick Sarre, from the University of South Australia, amongst them. The point I want to make is that those cautions should be listened to. They should be addressed. From a risk point of view, we must ensure that none of the capacity of the AIC is lost in the merger with the ACC.

When we are facing the issues that we are, in this country, the closer the levels of collaboration between those parties who have a responsibility to the community, through this place, must surely be examined to see where the greatest of benefit lies. If there are risks of the independence of the research arm and if there are risks associated with the direction that research takes or, indeed, the quality of international collaboration, then those issues must be addressed. In the meantime, my own experience and background tells me that the more closely agencies of this type work together the better the outcome should be for the Australian community. I urge that this legislation be passed by this place.