Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to reflect on Senator Back's very thoughtful contribution relating to the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015. I agree with him that the impact of illicit drugs and substance abuse is a very significant issue for this nation. Interestingly, today, the youth survey commissioned by Mission Australia indicated that amongst young people one of their most significant concerns was alcohol abuse and illicit drug abuse. In particular, there was a real concern about crystal methamphetamine. Having known people who have been affected by the scourge of crystal meth—constituents who have been impacted by it and have come to see me—we are not doing enough as a nation.

I find it unconscionable that there are decent families around this country who are having to take out loans, mortgage their homes and cash in their super, in order to get a loved one into a rehabilitation program that may cost $20,000 or $30,000 either here or overseas. There are a number of reputable services around the country and also, apparently, services in Chiang Mai, in Thailand. There is something wrong in a nation as wealthy as Australia when families who are on average wages, who are battling with their bills already—because they do not want to see their loved one, whether it is a son or daughter, a father or mother, a husband or wife, have their life destroyed by crystal meth—are desperately trying to get them help and there is no real help from state institutions or government funded help, or it is minimal and piecemeal. It is a big issue, but it is not the issue that we are dealing with today.

I do endorse Senator Back's comments about the concern and impact of substance abuse of illicit drugs on crime in this country, but the issue here is whether the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission should merge. I think if Sir Humphrey Appleby were in this room he would say, 'This proposed merger is a courageous move, but I am not quite sure whether it makes sense.' Merging a criminal investigation organisation, with strong powers to compel testimony and gather intelligence from real world criminal networks, such as the ACC, with the Australian Institute of Criminology, a research body that carries out self-directed as well as commissioned research, raises some serious questions. The government says it is revenue neutral which, in the current climate of growing budget deficits, raises the question of why it is being done.

The Australian Institute of Criminology fulfils a very valuable role in Australia: providing objective analysis and research on criminal trends and statistics across Australia and transnationally. I first came to rely on the Australian Institute of Criminology as a state member of the South Australian state parliament, in the legislative council. I relied on its research back in 1997 with their landmark work, Who's holding the acesa report into the frightening link between compulsive gambling and crime. The expert authors looked at the types of offences committed, the socioeconomic groups involved in gambling and sought to understand the reasons behind compulsive gamblers' behaviour and the wider effect on the family structure.

Of course, as a Western Australian senator, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you do not have the scourge of poker machines in your pubs and clubs. They are confined to the casino—to Jamie Packer's casino at Burswood. Obviously, they are driven by the nature of the product, if you like—the design of these machines, that actually is dangerous. They actually hurt people because they are designed to addict and to cause enormous harm.

So since that time I have been impressed by the work of the Australian Institute of Criminology. Now the government wants to merge it with the Australian Crime Commission. This is a heavy-hitting organised crime investigation body with powers akin to a standing royal commission—and that is appropriate. It absolutely appropriate that we have a body such as the ACC to deal with organised crime and with criminal elements where you need to have significant, broad and continuing powers to deal with the scourge of organised crime.

The merger involves removing the role of the director of the Australian Institute of Criminology and I am deeply concerned that it will also remove the effectiveness of the merged body to carry out independent and effective research. Senator Back, in his very thoughtful contribution, talked about the need for greater cooperation. I agree with him. But this is not cooperation: this is a takeover. This is co-option—this is basically taking over the Australian Institute of Criminology. The concern I have is that this will mitigate and reduce the effectiveness of the Australian Institute of Criminology in this country. We do need to have a body such as the AIC which is truly independent. I do not have a problem with it being directed to undertake Crime Commission research, and it could be directed to from time to time by the minister or by the ACC, for instance. But just to have it merged so that we no longer have a director of the Australian Institute of Criminology concerns me.

The director is usually an academic with a strong research record, and the AIC is also assisted by an advisory council. Under the merger the CEO of the ACC and its board will assume these roles, although there is no requirement for any of these people to be criminologists. There is a big difference between research into criminal behaviour and looking at societal trends, and also to give an objective, balanced view as to what we can do to reduce the impact of crime—to reduce crime and to look at the causes of crime. I am all for being tough on crime, but we need to be tough on the causes of crime. And in order to understand those we need a robust and truly independent body such as the Australian Institute of Criminology. I am worried that by being subsumed with this proposed merger—which, by the way, is revenue neutral—we will lose that opportunity.

How can the government guarantee that the priorities and mission of what is now the AIC—the Australian Institute of Criminology—will not be subordinated to the objectives of the Australian Crime Commission? I suggest that there is no guarantee. My understanding—and I am sure that the minister will shake or nod her head accordingly—is that this is being driven by the Minister for Justice, the Hon. Mr Keenan. It is his bill. I suggest respectfully to Minister Keenan, with whom I have had a very constructive and good working relationship, that this is not the right way to go about it. I suggest that this has not been thought through. I suggest that by going down this path we will reduce our ability to look at the causes of crime. The ACC's role is to deal with criminal organisations. I think that the AIC's role is to look at the causes of crime also and to look at it in a broader context than the ACC would.

Of course we all want the most effective criminal investigation bodies possible. The ACC—the Australian Crime Commission—does important work, and should be funded and structured to continue this work. But I am concerned that its priorities will supersede the separate and distinct role of the Australian Crime Commission.

I am very happy to talk to Minister Keenan as to how there can be a greater synergy between the two bodies. But I think that, whatever concerns the government has, it is really throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think that this particular bill will be retrograde; it will be counterproductive in the fight against crime. You need to have an independent, robustly independent research body such as the Australian Institute of Criminology. I believe that this move, revenue neutral as it is, will actually set us backwards in the fight against crime and that is why I have real reservations in supporting this. I cannot support the second reading of this bill but I am open to having further discussions with the government in terms of further coordinations between the two bodies. But let us not get rid of a body that has served us well. Let us keep its robust independence in order that we can combat crime most effectively in our nation.