Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity I present the final report of the inquiry into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and docu­ments received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Firstly, I thank the committee secretariat for the great work that they do in looking after this committee and the research that they put into it. I also want to thank the chair of the committee, Melissa Parke, and also the members of the committee. Perhaps I should not identify individuals but I do want to mention Senator Stephen Parry, who is a very keen member of that committee and brings some expertise into the operations of the committee. There are also a number of other members of that committee who have a background in law enforcement and bring great knowledge to the committee and the work that it does.

Over the last two years, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Com­mission for Law Enforcement Integrity has been conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, fulfilling a statutory requirement within that act for such a review to occur. The final report adds to existing recommendations made in an interim report tabled in February last year. The committee is pleased that one of those recommendations—the addition of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to ACLEI's jurisdiction—has been accepted by the government. The committee looks forward to the government's response to further recommendations we made in both the interim report and the final report.

The committee undertook a visit to Darwin and was hosted there by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Mr Phil Moss, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner, was also invited to come along. The committee is very appre­ciative of the way they looked after the commissioner and the committee, and gave the committee a bit of an understanding of some of their roles and procedures, which is important because Customs is now part of the ACLEI process.

The committee has continued to consider the extent of ACLEI's jurisdiction, endorsing a corruption risk based approach. In essence, the committee agrees that those agencies with the highest potential corruption risk should be subject to ACLEI's oversight, ensuring the application of measures and resources that are commensurate with the corruption risk. The committee has recommended the establishment of a second tier of jurisdiction within the LEIC Act, for agencies assessed to be of intermediate risk. Whilst law enforcement agencies with a higher corruption risk—that is, the AFP, the Australian Crime Commission and Customs—would continue to be subject to full ACLEI oversight, second tier agencies would be subject to a more limited relationship with ACLEI. This arrangement would enable limited corruption oversight of agencies with medium corruption risk, while preserving ACLEI's effectiveness and ability to manage with the appropriate resources. ACLEI would have the opportunity to establish a relationship with medium-risk agencies with a law enforcement function, building resistance to corruption through education, awareness raising and ongoing communication. ACLEI would also develop a greater understanding of the corruption risk profile of medium-risk agencies.

Based on the evidence provided during the course of the inquiry, the committee recom­mends that, at minimum, the Australian Tax Office, CrimTrac, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship be included in a newly established second tier jurisdiction.

I am conscious that there are other members who want to speak to the report, so I will shortly be seeking leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. In concluding my verbal remarks, I again thank the secretariat, the committee members and the commission itself. The commission is doing a fabulous job. It is a relatively new arrangement. We have been to see the commissioner and his staff at work to get a better understanding of that. They do a fabulous job and my best wishes and congratulations go to them. Again, my thanks to the committee. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The remainder of the speech read as follows—

The committee has also proposed a relationship between ACLEI and non-law enforcement related Commonwealth agencies that capitalises on ACLEI's unique experience and understanding of corruption issues. This includes continued collaboration, with the potential, in certain circumstances, for any agency to request ACLEI's assistance in a corruption investigation. In making these recommendations, the committee has not alleged the existence of widespread or serious corruption in second-tier agencies or the broader Public Service. Commonwealth agencies take their governance and accountability requirements very seriously. However, the potential for corruption suggests the need for, at the very least, a limited relationship with ACLEI. The committee has endorsed an integrity approach that understands that, where incentives for corrupt behaviour exist, the potential for corruption cannot be ignored. For this reason, the committee continues to emphasise the need for enhanced corruption detection and prevention measures.

In enhancing the operation of the LEIC Act, the committee has also recommended that the definition of corruption be further developed so as to provide a more detailed and comprehensive description of potential corrupt conduct for the purposes of the act. The committee considers that further definition of the term would provide greater clarity to the anti-corruption work conducted by ACLEI, while serving to more effectively delineate corruption issues from issues better handled by other agencies.

Finally, the committee considered the large amount of evidence provided in relation to broader issues of Commonwealth-wide integrity, including suggestions for greater coordination of existing integrity agencies and the possible establishment of a Commonwealth integrity commission. While the current efforts of agencies including the APSC, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the ANAO and ACLEI contribute to Commonwealth integrity, the committee has been left with the impression that more needs to be done.

In conducting the inquiry, the committee received evidence that suggested the need for anti-corruption measures that extend beyond narrowly defined law enforcement functions to all public sector agencies and actors. The committee has therefore recommended that the government conduct a review of the Commonwealth integrity system, with particular examination of the merits of establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission. The committee is mindful of the need to retain ACLEI's dedicated law enforcement role in any future arrangements.

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

Having been on the committee for the duration of this inquiry I also wish to make some remarks in relation to the report. I endorse the remarks of Senator Macdonald and commend the report to senators and members to read.

I want to address my remarks to one particular recommendation, recommendation 5. This recommendation has the prospect, if the government wishes to adopt it, of extending the tenure of a serving Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner by a maximum of two years. Currently, the act provides for a five-year maximum tenure of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission­er. I was involved with the original drafting of the bill with the then justice minister, Minister Ellison. The purpose of the five-year tenure was obvious. Someone in charge and responsible for the integrity commission could become susceptible to corruption if left in a job for a long tenure. This was one way of alleviating that potential. I think it is very healthy to have a turnover of commissioners.

However, one thing that the original drafters—and the committee, when we started—did not look into thoroughly was what happens if the commission is going through a stage of expansion, as Senator Macdonald has just highlighted in relation to bringing other in other jurisdictions at a second-tier level. The commission has been growing since its inception, after the act was promulgated in 2006. However, not having that provision could restrict and severely dampen or even harm the reputation of the commission. Therefore the committee in its wisdom has decided to recommend that a further two-year tenure be allowed.

In doing that the committee has also put some great checks and balances in place. Firstly, the minister must recommend it to the Governor-General and, secondly, the parliamentary joint committee must also approve an extended tenure of two years. I think that is a great measure, simply because if the minister of the day, for whatever reason, extended the integrity commission­er's tenure—the minister may just decide to do that, although I know ministers look at things far more judiciously than that—the committee would have another right of veto. So, if the committee, with its closer involve­ment with the integrity commissioner, felt that that was an inappropriate extension, the committee could veto that.

I think that lovely safety valve within the recommendation warrants the government considering this recommendation and adopting it, in the event that it may be needed. It may never be needed; however, it would be there and the commission would not suffer if we could extend the tenure of the commissioner where the circumstances warranted it.

That is all I wish to add to the record so that people, when reading these recommend­ations, have a greater understanding of the thought and the work behind that particular recommendation. I thank the Senate.