Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present two reports of the committee as listed at item 10 on today’s Order of Business, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report on the examination of the Australian Crime Commission annual report 2009-10 is an important part of the committee's work. Indeed, it is a statutory obligation. The committee has therefore examined the ACC's account of its performance in 2009-10 and has found, happily, that the ACC has fulfilled all of its reporting requirements. 2009-10 was a landmark year for the Australian Crime Commission after a period of significant change. As the CEO, Mr John Lawler, described it, the agency has continued to define a valuable role adding value to partner agencies' work in the pursuit of serious and organised crime.

The Australian Crime Commission continues to unite the fight against serious and organised crime, operating as a conduit or point of fusion for criminal intelligence across the country. In this respect the committee was pleased to hear that the newly established criminal intelligence fusion capability has already identified 53 previously unknown serious and organised crime targets. Mr Deputy President, I am sure you would agree that that is very good news for our law enforcement community.

The Australian Crime Commission largely met the agreed key performance indicators. However, only 67 per cent of partner agencies agreed or strongly agreed that their understanding of the overall criminal environment has increased as a result of the commission's intelligence. The ACC has expressed its intention to improve upon this result and noted that the key performance indicator has since been adjusted to refer to understanding of the serious organised criminal environment to better reflect the aim of the Australian Crime Commission.

Mr Deputy President, there was also much discussion about control operations that you would recall. I will not go into that. Suffice to say that, given the level of complexity and global reach of criminal enterprise in today's world, a further review of the control operations regime may be appropriate to ensure that it remains an effective tool in the fight against serious and organised crime. I am very happy to commend the committee's report to the Senate.

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ANNUAL REPORT

In relation to the joint committee's report on examination of the Australian Federal Police annual report 2009-10, you would be aware, Mr Deputy President, that the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has recently been widened to include the Australian Federal Police through amendments to provisions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act. The committee now has a duty to examine each annual report of the Australian Federal Police and report back to the parliament on any matter appearing in or arising out of any such annual report.

So the committee has taken its first and very important look at the AFP's account of its performance in 2009-10 and has found—it is very good news—that the AFP has fulfilled all of its reporting requirements. As noted by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Tony Negus, the AFP's first appearance before the committee is a significant milestone in the oversight of the AFP. Let us face it, I know that the government, the opposition and the Australian people are proud of this institution and its oversight is an important aspect of the committee's, and indeed the parliament's, role.

I make one point before I close. The AFP largely met key performance indicators with one exception: the drug harm index, a measurement of avoided cost of drug harm due to seizures and interdiction, achieved a result of $473 million. This fell considerably short of the domestic target of $886 million. This can largely be explained by the vagaries of the calculation of the index. I suspect that next time the committee—and I see one of its members, Senator Polley, here this afternoon—will examine that far more closely.

Moreover, in February of this year the Australian National Audit Office identified a need for the Australian Federal Police to improve the implementation of new policies. It made four recommendations relating to internal governance, risk management, organisational capability and oversight of new policy implementations. The AFP has endorsed these recommendations and the committee looks forward to their imple­mentation over time. The committee appreciates the AFP's engagement with the committee so far. I think the relationship has started off very well and all of us look forward to continuing to work with them. We look forward to an effective oversight relationship in the future as the AFP undertakes the committee's wider duties to monitor, review and report on the AFP's performance of its very important functions. I am very happy to commend the report to the Senate.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to make a few short comments in relation to these reports. As we have already heard, this is the first year that the Australian Federal Police annual report has been considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. This is a significant milestone in the oversight of the Australian Federal Police.

The range and sophistication of AFP activities has changed significantly in recent years. The Australian National Audit Office estimated AFP expenditure in 2010-11 will approach $1.4 billion. In real terms this is more than 3½ times the expenditure in 1998-99. The acceptance of the bill review has allowed the AFP to restructure into three core operational areas: security and protection, international deployment and serious crime. Looking at just one of the key areas of development in the AFP helps to provide some insight into the complexity of the operations of the AFP and the intricacies of the methods of reporting. Given the traditional way many people consider police operations I am sure that, like me, many senators are surprised by the technical requirements that are now necessary for a successful operation of a contemporary force, like the AFP.

In February 2011 the AFP opened its Australian Illicit Drug Data Centre. While this incorporated some of the existing services of the AFP it also included two new functions. One is the development of a scientific basis for monitoring the geographical regions, the production methods and the precursors used to supply the Australian illicit drug market. The other is the development of a formal risk assess­ment methodology for precursor chemicals that have been indentified by the National Precursor Working Group. This leads on to recognising one of the key performance indicators used by the AFP in its annual reporting format. This is the Drug Harm Index. Unfortunately, this is one of the few KPIs the AFP did not meet: $473 million compared with a target of $886 million. But that does not detract from the value of this type of key performance indicator. One of the risks with key performance indicators is that they reflect outputs rather than outcomes. While outputs may be useful for gauging activity and industry levels, they generally do not reflect what has been the benefit of a particular activity.

The Drug Harm Index is a complex measurement that has been developed in conjunction with the University of Queensland. The index aims to assess the social harm around narcotics and the broader return to the community resulting from the investment in law enforcement. The Drug Harm Index incorporates a formula that involves multiplying the seizure weight of a particular drug by an estimate of its social cost. Opiates are $1.09 million, cocaine is $460,000, sedatives are $336,000 stimulants are $263,000, precursors are $209,000 and cannabis is $8,000.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has also considered the annual report of the Australian Crime Commission. The ACCC appears to meet each of its KPIs, but this assessment was not completely supported by some of the partner organisations. This is an issue that the Australian Crime Commission committee will continue to work on. The committee also took the opportunity to explore the Commonwealth Ombudsman's concerns regarding the extension of controlled operations that extend beyond three months in a way that bypasses the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's oversight mechanism. The committee recognises that effectiveness on control operations does require some flexibility in the face of the changing circumstances brought about by the complexity and global reach of criminal activities.

I join with the previous speaker in commending the reports to the Senate. I would also like to pay tribute to the former chair of this committee, former Senator Steve Hutchins. I would like to congratulate the new chair, Chris Hayes, from the other place. I would also like to put on record my thanks to all committee members and the secretariat for the way that we worked together to produce what I think are some very good reports from this committee. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.