Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023. The coalition supports the intent of this bill. It is, however, somewhat ironic, as this bill makes changes to a range of Commonwealth statutes that relate to oversight, but, until the coalition intervened, the scrutiny processes around the bill itself were less than satisfactory.

The original intent as communicated to us was that the entirety of this bill would be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, making a further committee inquiry unnecessary. For whatever reason, that did not happen. Instead, only a single technical provision of the bill relating to a change in the name of the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption was ultimately referred to the PJCIS. Understandably, the PJCIS declined to conduct an inquiry into an inconsequential amendment on name change. As a result, the bill almost avoided scrutiny completely. Luckily, at the eleventh hour, and at the urging of the coalition, the government realised that error and the bill was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.

It is important that such a process is conducted because, while much of the bill is procedural, we are dealing with important and complicated matters relating to criminal law and national security. Whenever legislation touches on areas like the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act, as this bill does, it should be subject to careful examination by a parliamentary committee, which can examine how proposed changes will work in practice. The only way to do this is to hear from agencies likely to be affected by the legislation. We all in this place have an interest in avoiding unintended consequences being baked in to Commonwealth law.

Schedule 1 of this bill will amend the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act to close a loophole relating to the obligation imposed on reporting entities to register with AUSTRAC. Currently, that obligation can only be enforced if AUSTRAC becomes aware of the failure to register within 12 months of the contravention. The amendments in schedule 1 will allow AUSTRAC to more effectively enforce contraventions. In addition, the amendments in schedule 1 would clarify that sensitive AUSTRAC information that is shared with partner agencies cannot then be presented to courts and tribunals by those agencies.

Finally, the amendments in schedule 1 would authorise the AUSTRAC CEO to use computer programs, including automated programs, to take non-adverse administrative actions, such as registration renewals. Explanatory materials note the need for sophisticated internal business rules and quality assurance and refer to high-risk decisions. Consultation on the rollout and implementation of any computer-assisted decision-making will be essential if the changes are to be effective. It is the execution that counts here. We will monitor these changes to see how they play out over time.

Amendments to the Foreign Evidence Act in schedule 5 of the bill will mean that foreign evidence is no longer required to be certified by a 'judge, magistrate or officer' of the relevant country. Instead, testimony may also be signed or certified by 'a person authorised to administer an oath or affirmation or put a person under an obligation to tell the truth' in or of the foreign country to which the request was made. This change would mean that foreign evidence will be admissible in a wider range of circumstances.

The amendments proposed in schedule 6 of the bill would provide the Attorney-General with a discretionary power to refuse consent to a request or an application for transfer to or from Australia at an earlier stage in the process. This is intended to reduce procedural overheads associated with the international prison transfer process.

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act allows eligible judges or nominated AAT members to issue warrants, orders and approvals to use certain covert or coercive investigative powers. To provide oversight to this process, both Victoria and Queensland have established public interest monitors who can appear at hearings of applications for warrants and, essentially, be a contradictor. The current legislation prevents those public interest monitors from making submissions relating to part 5.3 supervisory orders—those being control orders, extended supervision orders and interim supervision orders issued under part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, including in relation to matters concerning terrorist offenders. The provisions in schedule 8 of the bill would allow the public interest monitors in Victoria and Queensland to make submissions relating to part 5.3 supervisory orders. Again, we will monitor these changes to see how they play out in practice.

Changes to schedule 9 of the bill would allow the commissioner to suspend a person's participation in the National Witness Protection Program in circumstances where the participant requests it or where the commissioner forms the view that the participant has done or intends to do something that will limit their ability to protect and assist the participant. Having looked at these changes through the committee process, we are of the view that the changes provide appropriate flexibility to the commissioner to suspend participation where necessary. In most cases, it is likely to be the commissioner, informed by the officers on the ground who actually provide the assistance and protection, who is best placed to make decisions about how the act should be administered in any particular case. I understand that the government will move some technical amendments to this schedule to address issues identified by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. We will support those amendments. I also understand that the Australian Greens will move a range of amendments to the powers conferred by this schedule which we do not consider are necessary.

As I said earlier, the coalition agrees with the intent of this bill. We are glad that the bill was scrutinised by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. That this bill received such scrutiny is thanks to the vigilance of coalition senators and members. As a rule, we believe that parliamentarians should not be asked to change Australia's criminal or national security legislation without scrutinising the impact of those changes. Of course, where a bill has urgent and important national security implications, we will support the timely passage of appropriate legislation, but this was not one of those cases. We will support the passage of this legislation through the parliament, and I commend the bill to the Senate.