Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission on the examination of the annual report of 2007-08 of the Australian Crime Commission, together with the Hansard record of proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Before I report on the committee’s findings, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for their contributions to this examination, in particular senators Boyce, Parry, Polley and Fielding, along with our colleagues in the other place. I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Australian Crime Commission board, particularly the Australian Crime Commission Chief Executive Officer, John Lawler; the former Chief Executive Officer, Alistair Milroy; and the chair of the ACC board, Mick Keelty. Finally, a special thank you needs to go to the committee secretariat, headed by the dedicated and indefatigable Dr Jacqueline Dewar, supported by Nina Boughey and Danielle Oldfield, for all the assistance they have provided.

Since our last report, we have lost our minister, our chief executive officer and we are about to lose our chairman—that is, Bob Debus, Alistair Milroy and Mick Keelty. I would like to thank them on behalf of the committee for their exceptional contribution to public life and their efforts in law enforcement. This report has been undertaken as part of the committee’s statutory duty under the Australian Crime Commission Act to examine each annual report of the Australian Crime Commission and report to parliament on any matter appearing in or arising out of any such report. As a result of the examination of the report and the evidence received at the public hearing in Canberra in March, the committee has made four recommendations for the government and the ACC to consider.

The first recommendation relates to the need to expedite the judicial process for contempt proceedings relating to ACC contempt matters. This matter was first brought to the attention of the government and the parliament in the Trowell report. During the public hearing the ACC reiterated its concern that the commission does not have mechanisms that are broad, strong or fast enough to deal with contempt arising out of the exercise of the ACC’s coercive powers. The difficulties posed by contempt proceedings were highlighted by Mr Lawler, who indicated that the ACC has intelligence suggesting that certain high-risk crime groups have directed their members to frustrate ACC examinations by refusing to comply with and to provide evidence to the commission. It is an intolerable situation where organised crime groups are able to disrespect the legal powers granted to the commission by relying on the delay that arises when contempt proceedings are pursued. This is not the first time the committee has made this recommendation, but I would hope that it will be the last. It is imperative for the efficacy of ACC investigations that the government issues a response to the Trowell report recommendations and considers how it will enhance definitions of contempt and extradite contempt proceedings.

The second recommendation relates to the shifting focus of the ACC towards financial crime under Wickenby and Midas determinations and the need to address this shifting focus in the ACC’s structure. To address this the committee is suggesting that the Commissioner of Taxation be included as a member of the ACC board, a view supported by the board, according to its chairman. Again this recommendation goes back as far as 2005, when the committee made the same recommendation in its report on the review of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. I am aware that this recommendation has featured in at least two subsequent reports as well. We have been advised that the board has taken some action in the interim by inviting the Commissioner of Taxation to attend meetings as an observer; but in the long-term it is the view of the committee and the ACC board that the increased focus on the financing and assets of serious and organised crime will be best served by having the commissioner as a permanent voting member.

The third recommendation deals with establishing a practice of reporting and publicising a list of corruption complaints received and investigated by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity in an appendix to the ACC annual reports. We recognise the concerns of ACLEI that reporting these process cases in an inappropriate manner could jeopardise ongoing investigations or unduly tarnish the reputation of individuals whose guilt has not yet been established. Nevertheless, ensuring the accountability and transparency of ACC reporting processes is a key responsibility of the parliamentary joint committee and as such we firmly believe that this process is necessary. At the same time, we are fully supportive of ACLEI and ACC collaborating on a reporting mechanism that does not compromise or cast aspersions on any case or individual so long as it continues to provide the information in an open and accountable way.

Finally, the ACC is a unique organisation in that, unlike every other law enforcement organisation, the ACC’s CEO has no ability to remove staff members based on loss of confidence in that staff member’s integrity. I am sure I do not need to tell senators just how critical it is that our law enforcement agencies have the ability to monitor their officers’ integrity and act to deal with potential or prospective breaches. Every state police force has this ability, as does the Australian Federal Police. The CEO of the ACC does not even have the power to suspend employees under investigation.

This is an untenable situation for an organisation that is taking the fight to organised crime in Australia, where the potential for security breaches is enormous and the stakes are high. As such, the committee recommends that the Australian government review existing arrangements for the suspension and dismissal of Commonwealth law enforcement agency employees believed on reasonable grounds to have engaged in serious misconduct or corruption and that the government take action as appropriate, bearing in mind the need to respect the rights of employees.

In conclusion, I would like to commend the ongoing work of the Australian Crime Commission in their fight against serious and organised crime. The agency is performing exceptionally well and continues to meet its key performance indicators. The recommendations arising from this report will assist the commission by removing some serious impediments to its effective operation. I table this report. I encourage senators to give it due consideration, to read it and to assist us in prosecuting the recommendations that we have made to this parliament and to this government.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to endorse the comments made by the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission and also endorse his thanks to the members of the committee and to the secretariat for the outstanding work they do. I have great pleasure in speaking to the tabling of this report on the 2007-08 annual report from the Crime Commission. The establishment of the Crime Commission in January 2003 was a proud achievement of the Howard government and I believe has been well borne out by the great work that the commission has done since. The commission replaced the National Crime Authority, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments. It has become a truly national criminal intelligence and investigation agency, with a greater focus continuing to be put on the intelligence side of its work.

The ACC started with a budget of $65 million in 2003-04 and in 2009-10 it will have a budget of $111 million, which I think demonstrates the growth in its work. However, we found during a hearing that arrest rates have fallen. The number of people charged by the ACC in 2004-05 was 294, and this dropped to 176 in 2006-07 and went to 210 in 2007-08. Some of the submissions made to the committee’s review of the ACC noted these figures and suggested that they represented a decline in the commission’s effectiveness. The investigative journalist and author on organised crime Mr Bob Bottom pointed out that during 2006-07 the New South Wales Crime Commission was responsible for 445 arrests, compared with the ACC’s 176. The New South Wales figure was achieved with a staff of just 110, compared to the 619 employed by the ACC. The budgets were also compared: there was $14 million for the New South Wales commission and well over $100 million that year for the ACC.

The ACC, I think quite rightly, explains the drop in the arrests by emphasising the change in the focus of its operations, as I noted. They told our committee that the investigations of many offences are best carried out by Australia’s police forces, with the ACC working more on national intelligence. Certainly, an overarching intelligence role is the ideal use of the commission’s resources, but we as a committee feel that this must also be accompanied by a rigorous accounting of this move towards more qualitative KPIs for the ACC. We can measure arrests and the like, but intelligence by its very nature is a far more difficult measurement to make, and so we must rely very carefully and heavily on qualitative KPIs to be sure that the money given to the ACC is being effectively used.

The intelligence services provided by the ACC to its partner organisations are invaluable in their ability to make arrests. Eighty-seven per cent of the ACC’s operations are conducted with its 16 partner organisations, including the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office. The ACC reports that the feedback and success of its collaborations with partner organisations has been positive. This, of course, is an area that we must continue to watch with great vigilance and to investigate very thoroughly.

The first indicator of the ACC’s performance is the provision of effective and efficient criminal intelligence systems, which includes the storage of intelligence data, in collaboration with partner organisations. I am pleased that the commission is continually upgrading and revising its data capabilities. Last year saw the launch of its latest version of the Australian criminal intelligence database, which includes new capabilities in text analysis and socionetwork analysis tools to detect and map criminal networks—putting two and two together so that you get four right across Australia, not just in small areas and not just in one city. These networks will be invaluable in the time to come.

Recently, data intelligence regarding tax avoidance, tax evasion and large-scale money laundering has been a strong focus of the commission through Project Wickenby. Project Wickenby, of course, is a cooperative partnership between the ATO, the AFP, ASIC, the Commonwealth DPP and the Australian Crime Commission. In March this year the ACC reported to us that Project Wickenby had resulted in 23 criminal investigations, three convictions and 40 people being charged with indictable offences, as well as $287.3 million in tax liabilities being raised. Given the links that organised crime has with tax avoidance and money laundering, collecting and analysing intelligence on taxation is going to be a growing and ever more important part of the commission’s work.

The links between the ATO and the ACC are very important in detecting organised crime through taxation data. This committee has continually advocated that the Commissioner of Taxation have a permanent position on the Australian Crime Commission board and that view has been supported by Commissioner Keelty, who said, ‘There is great benefit in having the tax commissioner on the board.’ Therefore, we recommend to the government that the process to include the taxation commissioner as a full member of the Australian Crime Commission board should be expedited.

The second performance indicator of the commission’s operations is to provide investigation and intelligence operations into federally relevant criminal activity. A very necessary component of its work in this area to investigate and to gather intelligence is their powers to coerce witnesses to appear and to provide information. In 2007-08 the ACC issued 895 summonses to attend an examination and they conducted 760 examinations. These coercive powers of the ACC are invaluable in their investigation of cross-border organised crime and for gathering information that can be used by both the AFP and state police bodies. For instance, under Strike Force Wolsley the commission recently executed 31 search warrants in relation to the alleged criminality and acquisition of illegally obtained assets by the Hells Angels outlaw motorcycle gang. Strike Force Wolsley was established in August last year and has so far resulted in 123 charges being laid, 36 arrests and the seizure of 31 illegal firearms as well as illegal drugs with an estimated street value of $5 million. The commission’s work with the Joint Asian Crime Group has also had success with the recent prevention of $25 million worth of methamphetamines going onto Australian streets. It was in May, last month, that this shipment was prevented from entering the Australian drugs market.

However, the committee has noted that the ACC needs to have stronger and more expedient mechanisms for dealing with contempt when a person fails to cooperate with the examiners and the examination process. We have heard from the commission that delays in the court’s hearing of contempt matters have often resulted in ‘the importance, relevance and value of the information that comes from those hearings being greatly degraded’. In short, it is too easy for people called as witnesses to frustrate the process by using court appeals to destroy the timeliness and the value of the information they have. Naturally enough, it is the criminals or the alleged criminals with the deepest pockets who have the most opportunity to delay and frustrate the process of uncovering evidence which will assist the Australian community. So certainly we need to work in that area to support this extraordinarily valuable organisation in the work that it is doing to save and protect the Australian community. I commend the report to the House.

Question agreed to.