Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the annual report of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Integrity Commissioner thereof. Being a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—and I think the longest serving member—I wish to just make some comments about that. In particular, Australia did not need to move down this path because there was no systemic corruption detected in the agencies that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity supervises—they are the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. However, it was Justice Minister at the time, Senator Chris Ellison, who instigated the establishment of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity not because there was a problem in Australia but to ensure that a problem never existed, and if any problems were detected there was an appropriate and well-equipped body to deal with such matters that would come under its jurisdiction.

The commission has been superbly run for some years now. There are some issues that the parliamentary joint committee look at in relation to matters that are raised with the committee but, by and large, the committee is serving its purpose in oversight of the commission. The commission is certainly serving its purpose to the Australian law enforcement community by ensuring that adequate standards are in place for corruption or breaches of legislation that require investigation by the commission.

As with all agencies when they commence there is always an infancy, a learning period and a time of establishment. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity certainly has passed that point now and has developed into a fine agency. I can see as we move forward that the commission will continue to provide the security and the comfort that Australians need to know: that two key law enforcement agencies in this country are adequately supervised and there are mechanisms in place to deal with any breaches that the commission has authority to investigate. Also, the commission has the ability to supervise internal investigations that are conducted by the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. That also gives added comfort that there is an additional independent body looking at matters of internal investigation when they do arise.

I think the model we have adopted in Australia is exceptionally good. I think the model works. As always, the model will need to be constantly reviewed and updated, and this report in particular highlights to the parliament the attributes and the issues in relation to the commission. I urge any senators who are not familiar with the commission to read the report and to be assured—and I hope the Australian public are assured—that this commission is in place to serve a purpose: not necessarily to detect corruption that was perceived to be there, but to be there in case and to be there as a watchdog. The old saying is: it is no good shutting the gate once the horse has bolted. In this case the horse is still in the paddock and the gate has had some good locks added to it. I think that is a good analogy to describe how the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity commenced. We are certainly well secured in this country. I know other countries have looked at our models and hopefully we can be of some assistance to other jurisdictions in relation to anticorruption methods. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.