Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is opposed to the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015. In the words of one of the former ministers in this area whom I have discussed this bill with, it simply is not a good fit. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, or the ACC Act, and repeal the Criminology Research Act 1971, or the CR Act, in order to merge the Australian Institute of Criminology into the Australian Crime Commission.

The bill comprises two schedules. Schedule 1 makes amendments to the ACC Act. The purposes of the amendments in this schedule are to enable the merged agency to continue to carry out the Australian Institute of Criminology's research work; to share criminological research and information with any person, including the private sector; and to carry out commissioned research. Schedule 2 repeals the Criminology Research Act to abolish the AIC as a statutory agency. The Australian Institute of Criminology, or the AIC, was established in 1973 under the CR Act. As a Commonwealth statutory authority, the AIC is regulated under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Staff of the AIC are generally engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 but may also be employed or engaged by the AIC for a particular project.

According to the AIC 2013-14 annual report, the AIC:

… has served as Australia's national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice for more than 40 years, undertaking and promulgating new research, monitoring and analysing crime trends, and providing advice to inform legislative, policy and practice change.

The independent status of the AIC has meant its output is not only robust, but trusted by government, law enforcement and justice agencies across the nation and—

I should stress from the evidence the committee received—

internationally. Much of the AIC's work falls under the Commonwealth Government’s strategic research priorities, in particular, the priority themes of 'living in a changing environment', 'promoting population health and wellbeing' and 'securing Australia's place in a changing world'.

A Criminology Research Advisory Council, established under the CR Act in 2011, advises the Director of the AIC on strategic research priorities, communications and the Criminology Research Grants Program. The advisory council consists of nine members, who represent the Australian government and all states and territories. This composition ensures that the areas targeted for research funding reflect both national and state and territory priorities. The Criminology Research Grants Program, managed by the AIC, is funded by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The Director of the AIC approves a series of research grants each year, taking into account the recommendations of the Criminology Research Advisory Council. The program funds research that has relevance to jurisdictional policy in the areas of law, police, judiciary, corrections, mental health, social welfare, education and related fields.

The Australian Crime Commission commenced operation on 1 January 2003. It has its origins in the April 2002 Council of Australian Governments leaders summit, which agreed that a new national framework was needed to meet the challenges of multijurisdictional crime. It replaced and combined the strategic and operational intelligence and specialist investigative capabilities of the National Crime Authority, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments.

According to its latest annual report, the aim of the ACC is:

Reduced serious and organised crime threats of most harm to Australians and the national interest.

To achieve this aim, the ACC has a range of special coercive powers such as the capacity to compel attendance at examinations, the production of documents and the answering of questions, similar to a royal commission. The ACC also has an intelligence-gathering capacity and a range of investigative powers common to law enforcement agencies, such as the power to tap phones, use surveillance devices and participate in controlled operations. Like the AIC, the ACC is regulated under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, and staff of the ACC are engaged under the Public Service Act.

With that background, the 2014 Commission of Audit, announced by the Abbott government and released in February 2014, made a number of recommendations, including that:

A consolidated crime intelligence capability would also better support law enforcement operations …

The Commission of Audit did not suggest the possibility of the AIC merging with the ACC but proposed that consideration be given to moving the AIC to a university. This, perhaps, would have been a better framework to maintain the independence.

Prior to the 2015 budget, there was media speculation that the two bodies—the AIC and the ACC—would merge, and at the time Labor's shadow minister for justice, Mr Feeney, wrote to the minister requesting a briefing. However, the minister noted that the government was yet to make a decision regarding the proposed merger and so would not be offering a briefing at that time. Following the 2015 budget, the Minister for Justice announced the appointment of the ACC's CEO, Chris Dawson, as the newly appointed interim director of the AIC. At that time, Minister Keenan indicated that the government was considering whether the AIC should be placed within the ACC, but at that date no final decision had been made. The minister said:

In the interim, the ACC and AIC will continue to exist and operate as separate entities, while working together on expanding existing relationships.

Finally, on 25 September this year, the minister announced that the AIC would be placed within the ACC to boost research capability at the nation's criminal intelligence agency. The AIC is to be incorporated into the ACC as an independent research branch known as the Crime and Justice Research Centre, the CJRC. The minister stressed that the merger is not about cutting costs or personnel of either agency; it is about creating a unified workforce incorporating staff of both agencies.

The minister has stated that this merger brings together Australia's national criminal intelligence and research capabilities under one banner, and that having a unified resource of this type will enrich our national understanding of criminal activity, including serious and organised crime and terrorism, allowing police, justice agencies and policy-makers at all levels of government to adopt a more effective, efficient, evidence based response to crime.

Under the proposed merger, the AIC will carry its research functions over to the ACC, including its ability to undertake commissioned research. The AIC's corporate functions will be merged with those of the ACC. The position of AIC director will be abolished.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recently undertook an inquiry into this bill and the committee received correspondence from various stakeholders raising concerns about the proposed merger. As a result, Labor believes that the Australian Institute of Criminology's functions—which are to promote justice and to reduce crime by conducting criminological research, and communicating the results of that research to the Commonwealth, the States and the community—are best undertaken by an independent agency that can guarantee the independence of the work undertaken.

Further, the independence of the AIC has ensured that the programs for awarding grants and engaging specialists has been, and has been seen to be, independent and robust. As discussed in Labor's additional comments to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report, we believe that any positives that have been secured through the merger of the AIC and the Australian Crime Commission—such as access to classified data—can be secured through legislation and/or interagency agreements, and does not require a full merger.

The continued integrity and independence of criminological research in Australia is vital for both the quality of research but also the public trust in crime statistics. It is not in the public or the national interest for such statistics to ever be perceived to be anything less than completely accurate and compiled by independent and skilled professionals.

Labor senators continue to have concerns about these aspects of the bill. The appointment of the ACC CEO Chris Dawson as the interim director of the AIC in July 2015 raised concerns about there being an impending takeover of the AIC. Mr Dawson, appearing before the committee twice—first in his capacity as interim director of the AIC and then as director of the ACC—raised some concerns about the impact of the government's merger on the independence of his office.

We recommend that the Government further consider the concerns raised by stakeholders during the public hearing, and in the submissions received by the committee regarding maintaining the integrity and independence of the research currently undertaken by the AIC, including maintaining funding and access to datasets, and maintaining public access to data, research and library resources of the JV Barry Library operated by the AIC. If it were to proceed with a merger, amendments to the minister's second speech and explanatory memorandum to the bill would help to address these concerns by committing to writing the verbal assurance given by the government regarding these matters.

Further, Labor believes that the government should consider establishing a statutory advisory body similar to the existing AIC council to advise the ACC board on setting the criminological research agenda and priorities and allocation of grants. It is clear that this bill is not about improving government service delivery. It is about defunding services and that will result in reduced capabilities. As recently as last week, Prime Minister Turnbull's appointment as Secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Martin Parkinson, warned against degrading the abilities and organisational memory of our Public Service through outsourcing and redundancies. The government would do well to heed this advice.

We do not think the merger of these two agencies—or a takeover, as has been suggested by some—is a good fit. Therefore, Labor will oppose the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015 in its current form.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015 seeks to repeal the Criminology Research Act 1971 and amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. This bill abolishes the Australian Institute of Criminology as a statutory agency and merges its functions into the Australian Crime Commission to form a research branch, within the Australian Crime Commission, to be called the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has a long and proud history of undertaking and publishing world-class criminological research. John Vincent Barry, a lawyer, Supreme Court judge and pioneer of criminology in Australia, advocated for many years for the establishment of a national institute of criminology in Australia. His efforts came to fruition in 1970, when it was announced that such an institute was to be formed. The JV Barry Library, which is the most comprehensive library based collection in the field of criminology and criminal justice in Australia, was named after John Vincent Barry in recognition of his early work in this area.

The exact reasoning for this merger is still unclear. The Commission of Audit proposed that consideration be given to locating the AIC in a university. How we have ended up here, with a bill to merge the AIC with the ACC, is something only the government can adequately explain. I note that in the second reading speech in the other place, Minister O'Dwyer stated:

The Government sees great opportunity in combining the resources of the AIC and the ACC to provide Australian law enforcement agencies with central access to a consolidated and comprehensive criminal research and intelligence resource.

Having a unified resource of this type would significantly enhance support for law enforcement and bolster Australia's response to serious and organised crime.

The Greens have concerns that this is, in fact, much more of a takeover than a merger and will result in functions of the AIC being lost or subsumed. The first function of the AIC in the Criminology Research Act 1971 is 'to promote justice and reduce crime.' Nowhere in this legislation does it say that one of the functions of the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre will be to promote justice and reduce crime. In fact, when that is compared to the first function of the ACC in the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, which is:

… to collect, correlate, analyse and disseminate criminal information and intelligence and to maintain a national database of that information and intelligence—

it is clear that we are dealing with organisations that have very different aims and very different functions. It seems bizarre to be merging two agencies which have very different aims and very different functions, particularly as the minister has stated that this merger is not about reducing costs.

Promoting justice and reducing crime is really important in Australia. A 2011 AIC report found the cost of crime in Australia is approximately $47.6 billion. This bill provides no guarantee that when the AIC becomes part of the ACC the depth and breadth of research currently undertaken by the AIC will continue. That was a common theme in many of the submissions to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. We heard on that committee from Professor Rick Sarre, president of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminologists, who stated in his evidence to the committee:

There is no doubt at all that the membership of our organisation would be with the maintenance of the status quo. I am very happy to say that.

The committee also heard from the acting director of Griffith Criminology Institute, Professor Janet Ransley, who stated in evidence to the committee:

I think once you put this research function in a law enforcement agency there is a capacity for it to be perceived as co-opted by law enforcement. It will lose that aura of independence. That would be a great shame for Australia.

The committee also heard concerns around the intent of combining the research function of the AIC with the law enforcement function of the ACC, whilst maintaining the current board structure of the ACC. Those concerns essentially were that the merger or the takeover, whilst maintaining the current board structure of the ACC, would diminish the research program currently undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminology. Again I will quote from Professor Janet Ransley, who stated in evidence to the committee:

The ACC board, as it is currently constituted—by my understanding—comprises largely law enforcement-related personnel from the states and territories and federal agencies. I think that is an inappropriate body to be setting research directions as we would understand criminological research. I think it does show a lack of understanding about the distinction between law enforcement-related intelligence gathering—which is a legitimate and important function—and criminological research, which is about understanding the underlying factors that contribute to and worsen or reduce crime. I think that is not a great solution, to have the board—as currently constituted—directing research. I think it would result in a diminution of the research function, and it would be a disaster, actually.

The Crime Prevention Council submitted to the committee that the AIC has been highly respected and valued as a source of sound research and advice. The council further submitted that the diminution of its research, publications, overseas assistance and conference-organising functions would have an adverse effect on Australia's criminal justice influence and role in the region. Civil Liberties Australia, in their submission to the committee, said that they believe 'domestic crime issues may be neglected given the national priorities of the ACC'. Professor Rick Sarre, the president of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, stated in his evidence to the committee on that issue:

If you are looking at crime prevention and bringing safety and security to our communities, anti-terrorism is one arm, and the sort of intelligence gathering that the ACC has done so well for so many years is another arm. But, if you are talking about community development and you are talking about education, health, housing, welfare—all those sorts of things—and the things that the sociologists and psychologists are telling us are the grave risks to our community development, an intelligence-gathering body is not likely to engage in that sort of behaviour.

It is fair to say that when these matters were put to representatives of the ACC at the committee hearings they indicated to the committee that they were aware of the concerns that had been raised. But it is worth noting that, in general terms, none of the concerns that were raised with the committee have been addressed in this legislation. It will be interesting to hear whether the minister is prepared to make any further statements on these matters during the debate here in the Senate today.

The Greens certainly believe that the domestic crime issues that were referred to by Civil Liberties Australia and Professor Sarre are very important for Australia. They include things like parole supervision and reoffending, preventing youth offending and reoffending, how we deal with people in the justice system with mental illness, and drink-driving prevention—just to name a few. These are many of the issues that no doubt all senators would hear about regularly in the so-called law and order debate in this country. These are bread-and-butter law and order issues. Ultimately, if we as a parliament want to reduce crime in Australia—and, of course, if you reduce crime there are fewer victims of crime and Australia will become a safer place—then we need to better understand why people commit crimes and, importantly, understand what strategies and responses we can put in place to reduce the level of crime in this country and to make Australians safer. That is a core function of the AIC, and that is one of the functions that will be placed at risk should this legislation pass through the parliament.

We have concerns relating to the future research direction of the ACC. Currently the AIC has an advisory board, the Criminology Research Advisory Council, which is made up of members from the states, territories and Commonwealth. This board advises the Director of the AIC on strategic research priorities. Should this legislation pass, the Criminology Research Advisory Council will no longer be a statutory body. Evidence was given that there is consideration being given to reconstituting that council in some form and having an advisory body exist within the ACC. However, it is worth pointing out that, if that is not detailed in legislation, it would be simply the stroke of an administrative pen to dissolve any new body. As we have heard, Professor Sarre and Professor Ransley both gave evidence to the committee outlining concerns in this area.

Fundamentally, the Greens believe that, should this bill pass, there is a significant risk that broad-ranging criminological research that focuses on understanding the causes of crime, recommending crime prevention strategies and informing policymakers will take second place to the law enforcement needs of the ACC—and I will place very firmly on the record that the Greens understand the law enforcement argument here around the ACC, and nothing we are saying should be taken to be critical of that law enforcement function. We have heard that one of the justifications for this legislation is around things like access to datasets and the JV Barry Library. Those concerns have been articulated, and the Greens have no reason to believe that those concerns are unfounded, but we would make the point very strongly today that concerns like that can be addressed through administrative actions, such as potentially an MOU between the ACC and the AIC, and that effectively, if those are the concerns that are driving this legislation, we are taking a sledgehammer to a walnut here by proposing what has been sold to us as a merger but what the Greens fear is more of a takeover of the AIC by the ACC. So we will be opposing this legislation.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015 and add my words to those of previous speakers. We would all share the principle in this parliament and throughout the wider community that every effort must be made to contain, diminish and, of course, reduce the impact on victims of crimes, to bring those responsible for crime to account, and to reduce the massive impact that crime has in our community. Figures of $36 billion a year were mentioned. I think Senator McKim a moment ago mentioned the figure of $47.6 billion. So I lend my voice to any move that is likely to lead to better understanding of crime and study of crime in this country and, of course, all of those efforts to prevent it in the first place or to identify those responsible, bring them to account and reduce the impact on victims and on the community. As the minister in the other place said in her concluding remarks:

This bill implements an important consolidation of Australia's criminal research and intelligence capabilities. With the merger of the AIC into the ACC, the ACC will be better able to fulfil its role as Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, supporting and informing the efforts of law enforcement agencies around Australia.

Similarly, the new Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre in the ACC will continue to prepare and disseminate world-leading criminological research which informs our understanding of the trends and developments in crime and justice.

We have heard differing views on whether or not there is likely to be a diminution in the role of criminological research in this country. I would urge and hope that there will not. What I would think will be is a part of the thought process behind this move of merging the AIC into the ACC: that we end up with far more effect in terms of the work of the ACC without in any way reducing the effectiveness of criminological research. It will bring together two of the nation's leading authorities on crime and justice under the one banner.

The overall objective, of course, is to create a unified workforce that will incorporate the staff of both agencies to the mutual benefit of not only the Australian community but of the staff them themselves—and I will come back to the impact on staff in a few minutes. The prediction and the advice to government is that this type of unification of the resources will significantly enhance support for law enforcement in this country, bolster our response to serious and organised crime and help us to better understand the causes and the research mechanisms by which we can prevent major crime in this country. And, of course, we would expect to see enhanced evidence supporting a proactive and targeted response to crime by all of Australia's law enforcement agencies.

The staff are critically important to the move being undertaken. Their wellbeing has been a prime consideration throughout the development of the proposal. And there will be significant benefits to the staff of both agencies: the simple fact of being able to work more collaboratively in a closer environment and the capacity to be able to move within the organisation—as one in the research space sees the desire to further their own career progression, for example, in the actual work of the ACC. And, again, the ability of people whose main focus has been the responsibilities of the Crime Commission and who may actually develop an interest in the research space being able to move seamlessly, either permanently or on a project-by-project basis, into the research space must surely be of enormous benefit to the staff.

Equally, it has been important to provide the staff with a degree of certainty, as there have been questions about the possible co-location and merging of the two. That, of course, will happen should this legislation be passed. The question has been asked—and quite fairly—whether the independence of AIC research will be compromised in any way as a result of this merger. The understanding that has very clearly being given to me is, 'No, there will be no diminution on the impact of research.' The AIC would carry its research functions over to the ACC, forming the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre, headed by a senior criminologist and research specialist. I have no doubt that those with a keen interest in this space will be watching carefully to see how that process of selection is undertaken, to make sure that we do indeed have the services of an internationally-acclaimed criminologist and research specialist.

The ACC and the AIC agreed on this structure following consultation with the AIC's stakeholders. It is important to understand that. State and territory justice agencies, external criminology researchers and they themselves have emphasised—as indeed has been quoted by others this morning—the need for the AIC group, or the now Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre, to remain an independent research unit within the ACC. I have heard nothing and seen nothing that indicates a desire of government in any way to reduce either that independence or its excellence. In fact, I hope and expect we will see an enhancement of the research activities as a result of closer cooperation.

The Crime and Justice Research Centre's priorities will continue to be influenced by an advisory body similar to the current Criminology Research Advisory Council. The question of whether or not there will be a diminution as a result of that body no longer being a statutory body has been asked. I, for one in this place, would want to make sure that at all times there will be that level of independence and excellence. Should there ever be a case where that body's independence or its excellence is in any way diminished, I for one and others in this place would want to know about it, we would want an explanation from government and we would want a correction to that, so important is the issue.

There will be a broadening to include police representatives to reflect the important role the ACC plays in Australian law enforcement. There may be some who would say, 'Is that going to adversely impact the independence, excellence or direction of research?' Again, I certainly hope that it would not and that in fact it would only enhance, focus and act as a conduit for those police and other representatives to take back to their organisations a better understanding of the direction of research being undertaken and, indeed, the outcomes of research.

There is always a question in these cases: is this in some way an attempt to actually reduce funding? With the scourge of the increase in crime in this country and the impact of crime on the Australian community, both in physical terms of victims and in terms of the budget, one would hope there would not be a reduction of research funding. One would hope that in this merger we would actually see a greater focus on the need for supporting research. There will be an ethics committee to oversee the activities of the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre, as indeed an ethics committee currently oversees the role of the AIC.

Where are the benefits for both? I expect that there will be and I expect that the minister, if need be, would expand on them. AIC staff should have better and further access to classified information available now to the ACC agency members. If that informs their research activities, if it gives them guidance in the directions in which research ought to be undertaken or if, indeed, there is the plea that they require further funding, the fact that they should have access to classified information should be of benefit. It will enable them to develop better informed and targeted research to be of greater value to law enforcement and justice agencies. Again, you would think that nobody in the Australian community—nobody of law-abiding nature, anyhow—would argue with that objective. A merger will provide ACC with a specialist research capability that will support the development of evidence-based responses to serious and organised criminal threats. It should be able to do so more seamlessly and more quickly and be able to respond in a very much more effective and efficient way.

A merger, should the legislation be passed, will provide significant opportunities to the staff of what are now the two agencies by providing diversity in the type of work they can undertake and the professional opportunities available to them. I made mention of that earlier in my contribution. I can very firmly see the benefits to staff in a merged organisation where they can move to those areas in which they develop interest and in which they may want and be able to go on with higher qualifications and then from the ACC side, should they then have undertaken that research, to look at the value and the benefit of that person in their career coming back into the law enforcement side so that they can give greater effect to that work.

I want to conclude my comments by talking about one area in which I know the ACC is active, and in which I understand AIC undertakes significant research. It is what some are referring to as the pandemic—not the epidemic—of crystal methamphetamine in this country. In 2014, as a result of surveys it was estimated that 2.5 per cent of all Australians over the age of 14—that is, half a million people—had used methamphetamine at least once during that year.

I will put that into perspective by comparing it to other countries. The 2.5 per cent of Australians 14 years and older who had tried methamphetamine at least once in a year equates to 0.5 percent in the United States, Britain and Canada—countries to which we are often compared. That means that five times the number of people in our country in 2014 had used crystal methamphetamine—an illegal drug. Therefore we have in Australia—anecdotally we know this—a very severe issue. It is an area in which the ACC is active. Hopefully the AIC, reformed, would also have the resources to undertake the necessary research.

I will drill a little further into this issue. In Victoria, the Coroner's office reported in 2010 that one in every 25 drug related deaths was due to crystal meth or ice. Two years later—in 2012—the Victorian Coroner's office reported that the number was one in 10. Last September, the Medical Journal of Australia published a study of the Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre that showed a 318 per cent increase in hospitalisations from 2010-11 to 2011-12—in one year—in Melbourne as a result of issues associated with overdose and use of crystal methamphetamine. That figure of 318 per cent surely points to a greater need for a greater emphasis and better coordinated activity in our crime research, crime prevention and crime treatment, in order to reverse this evil trend.

A study undertaken by the Institute of Criminology of detainees in police stations around the nation found that 61 per cent of those held in the Kings Cross Police Station in Sydney tested positive to methamphetamine, 40 per cent held in Brisbane City Police Station tested positive to methamphetamine, and 43 cent of those in the watch house in my home city of Perth tested positive.

I will conclude with the words of the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission, Paul Jevtovic. In a forward to a report, The Illicit Drug Data Report 2012-13, which was released about 15 months ago, he wrote

… with its relative accessibility, affordability and destructive side-effects, crystal methylamphetamine is emerging as a pandemic akin to the issue of ‘crack’ cocaine in the United States.

In this place we share the view of the wider honourable community of this country that the use of illicit drugs and the crime that stems from that—the need to fund such an addiction by stealing or through some other means—must be addressed and attacked.

The bill that we see today has the objective of bringing together the national criminal intelligence analysis and research capabilities of the AIC, the Australian Institute of Criminology, and the ACC. I realise the reservations that have been expressed by the previous speaker and from eminent and highly regarded specialists in this field, criminologist Professor Rick Sarre, from the University of South Australia, amongst them. The point I want to make is that those cautions should be listened to. They should be addressed. From a risk point of view, we must ensure that none of the capacity of the AIC is lost in the merger with the ACC.

When we are facing the issues that we are, in this country, the closer the levels of collaboration between those parties who have a responsibility to the community, through this place, must surely be examined to see where the greatest of benefit lies. If there are risks of the independence of the research arm and if there are risks associated with the direction that research takes or, indeed, the quality of international collaboration, then those issues must be addressed. In the meantime, my own experience and background tells me that the more closely agencies of this type work together the better the outcome should be for the Australian community. I urge that this legislation be passed by this place.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to reflect on Senator Back's very thoughtful contribution relating to the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015. I agree with him that the impact of illicit drugs and substance abuse is a very significant issue for this nation. Interestingly, today, the youth survey commissioned by Mission Australia indicated that amongst young people one of their most significant concerns was alcohol abuse and illicit drug abuse. In particular, there was a real concern about crystal methamphetamine. Having known people who have been affected by the scourge of crystal meth—constituents who have been impacted by it and have come to see me—we are not doing enough as a nation.

I find it unconscionable that there are decent families around this country who are having to take out loans, mortgage their homes and cash in their super, in order to get a loved one into a rehabilitation program that may cost $20,000 or $30,000 either here or overseas. There are a number of reputable services around the country and also, apparently, services in Chiang Mai, in Thailand. There is something wrong in a nation as wealthy as Australia when families who are on average wages, who are battling with their bills already—because they do not want to see their loved one, whether it is a son or daughter, a father or mother, a husband or wife, have their life destroyed by crystal meth—are desperately trying to get them help and there is no real help from state institutions or government funded help, or it is minimal and piecemeal. It is a big issue, but it is not the issue that we are dealing with today.

I do endorse Senator Back's comments about the concern and impact of substance abuse of illicit drugs on crime in this country, but the issue here is whether the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission should merge. I think if Sir Humphrey Appleby were in this room he would say, 'This proposed merger is a courageous move, but I am not quite sure whether it makes sense.' Merging a criminal investigation organisation, with strong powers to compel testimony and gather intelligence from real world criminal networks, such as the ACC, with the Australian Institute of Criminology, a research body that carries out self-directed as well as commissioned research, raises some serious questions. The government says it is revenue neutral which, in the current climate of growing budget deficits, raises the question of why it is being done.

The Australian Institute of Criminology fulfils a very valuable role in Australia: providing objective analysis and research on criminal trends and statistics across Australia and transnationally. I first came to rely on the Australian Institute of Criminology as a state member of the South Australian state parliament, in the legislative council. I relied on its research back in 1997 with their landmark work, Who's holding the acesa report into the frightening link between compulsive gambling and crime. The expert authors looked at the types of offences committed, the socioeconomic groups involved in gambling and sought to understand the reasons behind compulsive gamblers' behaviour and the wider effect on the family structure.

Of course, as a Western Australian senator, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you do not have the scourge of poker machines in your pubs and clubs. They are confined to the casino—to Jamie Packer's casino at Burswood. Obviously, they are driven by the nature of the product, if you like—the design of these machines, that actually is dangerous. They actually hurt people because they are designed to addict and to cause enormous harm.

So since that time I have been impressed by the work of the Australian Institute of Criminology. Now the government wants to merge it with the Australian Crime Commission. This is a heavy-hitting organised crime investigation body with powers akin to a standing royal commission—and that is appropriate. It absolutely appropriate that we have a body such as the ACC to deal with organised crime and with criminal elements where you need to have significant, broad and continuing powers to deal with the scourge of organised crime.

The merger involves removing the role of the director of the Australian Institute of Criminology and I am deeply concerned that it will also remove the effectiveness of the merged body to carry out independent and effective research. Senator Back, in his very thoughtful contribution, talked about the need for greater cooperation. I agree with him. But this is not cooperation: this is a takeover. This is co-option—this is basically taking over the Australian Institute of Criminology. The concern I have is that this will mitigate and reduce the effectiveness of the Australian Institute of Criminology in this country. We do need to have a body such as the AIC which is truly independent. I do not have a problem with it being directed to undertake Crime Commission research, and it could be directed to from time to time by the minister or by the ACC, for instance. But just to have it merged so that we no longer have a director of the Australian Institute of Criminology concerns me.

The director is usually an academic with a strong research record, and the AIC is also assisted by an advisory council. Under the merger the CEO of the ACC and its board will assume these roles, although there is no requirement for any of these people to be criminologists. There is a big difference between research into criminal behaviour and looking at societal trends, and also to give an objective, balanced view as to what we can do to reduce the impact of crime—to reduce crime and to look at the causes of crime. I am all for being tough on crime, but we need to be tough on the causes of crime. And in order to understand those we need a robust and truly independent body such as the Australian Institute of Criminology. I am worried that by being subsumed with this proposed merger—which, by the way, is revenue neutral—we will lose that opportunity.

How can the government guarantee that the priorities and mission of what is now the AIC—the Australian Institute of Criminology—will not be subordinated to the objectives of the Australian Crime Commission? I suggest that there is no guarantee. My understanding—and I am sure that the minister will shake or nod her head accordingly—is that this is being driven by the Minister for Justice, the Hon. Mr Keenan. It is his bill. I suggest respectfully to Minister Keenan, with whom I have had a very constructive and good working relationship, that this is not the right way to go about it. I suggest that this has not been thought through. I suggest that by going down this path we will reduce our ability to look at the causes of crime. The ACC's role is to deal with criminal organisations. I think that the AIC's role is to look at the causes of crime also and to look at it in a broader context than the ACC would.

Of course we all want the most effective criminal investigation bodies possible. The ACC—the Australian Crime Commission—does important work, and should be funded and structured to continue this work. But I am concerned that its priorities will supersede the separate and distinct role of the Australian Crime Commission.

I am very happy to talk to Minister Keenan as to how there can be a greater synergy between the two bodies. But I think that, whatever concerns the government has, it is really throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think that this particular bill will be retrograde; it will be counterproductive in the fight against crime. You need to have an independent, robustly independent research body such as the Australian Institute of Criminology. I believe that this move, revenue neutral as it is, will actually set us backwards in the fight against crime and that is why I have real reservations in supporting this. I cannot support the second reading of this bill but I am open to having further discussions with the government in terms of further coordinations between the two bodies. But let us not get rid of a body that has served us well. Let us keep its robust independence in order that we can combat crime most effectively in our nation.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015 brings two of the nation's leading authorities on crime and justice, the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission, together under one banner. Australia's law enforcement and justice agencies are increasingly dependent on accurate research, information and intelligence to ensure that our officers on the ground, at our borders and in our intelligence agencies can do their job. Accurate research, information and intelligence are also essential to do deliver evidence based crime prevention strategies and effective justice policies that benefit the Australian community. A combined agency with strengthened research capability will be able to provide a better evidence base for our agencies to identify the patterns and associations that can detect, disrupt and undermine those who seek to keep to do our communities harm.

I would like now to turn to some of the specific points that were raised in the debate and address some of these points. Firstly, why does the government want to merge the AIC with the ACC? We believe that this will bring two of our leading authorities under the one banner. Whilst the proposed merger is expected to produce small savings over the forward estimates, can I assure the Senate that is not about cutting the costs or personnel of either agency; it is about creating a unified workforce incorporating the staff of both agencies.

We believe that there are benefits for both agencies and significant opportunities. By merging the two bodies, AIC staff would have greater access to classified information. This would enable them to develop better informed and targeted research that will be of greater value to law enforcement and justice agencies across Australia. It will also provide the ACC with a specialist research capability that will support the development of evidence based responses to serious and organised criminal threats. It will also provide significant opportunities to the staff of both agencies by providing a diversity in the type of work they can perform and also provide professional opportunities available to them.

We believe that the merger will assist in producing independent research that can inform policymaking by combining the expertise capability and data information holdings of the AIC and the ACC. This will significantly enhance support for law enforcement in counter-terrorism efforts and bolster Australia's response to serious and organised crime. The Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre will work closely with ACC, particularly on issues such as a common interest such as illicit drugs and crime prevention. Of course this will increase the value and relevance of the research, providing an enhanced evidence base to support a proactive and targeted response to crime and policy development by all law enforcement and justice agencies.

We believe there will be minimal risk only to both agencies. We believe it will be business-as-usual and there may be some minimal disruption but only during the transition process. Both have established a joint dedicated change management team to help manage this risk. Of course the government consulted in relation to the preparation of this bill with the two bodies in question and with the Attorney-General's Department, but we also consulted with states and territories through the Criminology Research Advisory Council and the ACC board throughout this process.

I will particularly address some comments that were made by Senator Collins and Senator McKim about consultation with external criminology researchers on the bill. We worked closely, as I have indicated, with the Attorney-General's Department and the two bodies to develop this bill for parliament's consideration. The AIC has a close working relationship with its stakeholders, including external criminology researchers, and it provided feedback from these stakeholders throughout the development of the merger process. The proposal also takes into account public statements made by criminology researchers and concerns this group proactively raised with the government. For example, the AIC provided feedback from the criminology research community that, should a merger proceed, the AIC should continue to carry out world-leading criminology research and remain an independent research unit within the ACC. Taking this feedback into account, the bill provides for the AIC to carry all of its research functions over to the ACC. Furthermore, the AIC's researchers will form a new research branch at the ACC—the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre—which will be headed by a senior criminologist and research specialist.

Earlier I mentioned the minimal impact on staff. I can assure the Senate that staff wellbeing has been a primary consideration throughout the development of this process and, as I have indicated, it will open up opportunities for staff. We particularly wanted to make this point, and I note that in correspondence from Minister Keenan to the shadow minister, the Hon. David Feeney, it was specifically noted that the merger will not result in significant job losses and that this bill is not about cutting the staff or functions of either agency. It is about leveraging their strengths to ensure that we are using existing capability as effectively as possible to achieve the best outcomes for the Australian community.

I will now go particularly to the issue of the independence of research, which has been raised by both Senator Collins and Senator Xenophon. Will the proposed merger impact the independence of the AIC's research? The answer, simply, is no. As I have indicated there will be the new branch of the ACC, the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre, where an ethics committee will oversee this centre's activities, as one currently does for the AIC. The department, the ACC and the AIC agreed on its organisational structure following specific feedback from AIC stakeholders that the AIC needed to maintain the capability to produce independent research. Whilst the centre's research priorities may become aligned more closely with law enforcement's high-level priorities, such as illicit drugs or transnational crime, this operating model would ensure that the centre will not be subject to undue influence by law enforcement industries. The centre's priorities will also continue to be influenced by an advisory body similar to the current Criminology Research Advisory Council.

I want to focus now on comments raised by all speakers in relation to this, particularly about the AIC's research, and state that the centre would continue to carry out the AIC's three main work streams, which are: statistical monitoring programs, fee-for-service research and thematic research on crime and justice priorities. In relation to its thematic research on crime and justice priorities, the research centre will work closely with the rest of the ACC, particularly on issues of common interest. Research staff will also have access to ACC-sensitive law enforcement information, enabling the centre to carry out confidential research on specific issues for the ACC and law enforcement and justice agencies. The research centre will also have access to the same data sets that are currently available to the AIC, and the researchers will also be able to access all of the AIC's data sets. I will state that the ACC Act contains strict provisions governing dissemination of ACC information, not only to other government agencies but also to the private sector. Of course this is appropriate, given the sensitive information and intelligence that the ACC currently handles. Whilst this is appropriate for the ACC's existing operations, following a merger it will be important that the ACC can make AIC research available to other criminology researchers and to the broader Australian community, as it currently does.

In recognition of this, the bill inserts a new information disclosure provision into the ACC Act to enable the ACC to share and publish criminological research and information in the same way as the AIC currently does. This will ensure that criminological research will not become subject to the strict information disclosure regimes that apply to other types of ACC information. The JV Barry Library would also be maintained, and the merger agency will continue to provide public access to its holdings on an appointment basis, as the AIC currently does. As part of the proposed merger the AIC has also begun digitising parts of the JV Barry Library to improve public access, and this process will continue after the merger. In addition to publishing research, the merged agency will respond to specific data requests from researchers in the same way as the AIC currently does, and each request will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In response to a comment from Senator Xenophon, the merged agency will respond to specific data requests from researchers, as I indicated, in the same way as the AIC currently does. Each request will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with the level of detail provided subject to ethical and privacy considerations. In the unlikely event of a disagreement between researchers and the merged agency, researchers will be able to escalate the matter to the CEO, as is currently the case for the AIC. If the dispute cannot be dealt with in this way, researchers have an appeal mechanism. Furthermore, the ACC is subject to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction, so the Ombudsman can investigate complaints as well. As is currently the case, researchers can also seek access to unpublished reports through the freedom of information process.

Senator McKim in particular asked about the library. I think that issue has been addressed. Senator Collins asked a question about the government's decision not to move the AIC to a university, as was suggested by the National Commission of Audit. Merging the AIC with the ACC presents a unique opportunity that would not be available if the AIC was moved to a university. By merging the two bodies, AIC staff will obtain greater access to classified information. I have addressed some of those issues previously.

I now turn specifically to the schedules to the bill and address particular comments raised by both Senator Collins and Senator Xenophon in relation to the continuation of the Criminology Research Advisory Council. The government consulted closely with the Criminology Research Advisory Council in developing the proposal to merge the AIC with the ACC. The advisory council advised that it may wish to maintain a role in the merged agency but that this role does not need to be enshrined in legislation. Following a merger, the ACC board will assume responsibility for providing strategic direction to the ACC about its new research functions and for determining the ACC's criminological research priorities. However, in doing so, the ACC CEO proposes that the board take advice from the non-legislated research advisory committee. That research advisory committee is intended to perform a similar role to the current Criminology Research Advisory Council, with expanded membership to include the enforcement agencies. This will ensure that justice agencies continue to play a central role in determining the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre's priorities.

In relation to the non-legislated research advisory committee, on 20 November 2015, the Criminology Research Advisory Council agreed that the new non-legislated research advisory committee would consist of the advisory council's existing members plus two law enforcement representatives and a representative from the Australia and New Zealand Society of Criminology. These changes are intended to broaden the range of stakeholders that will provide advice on crime and justice research priorities.

The ACC CEO proposes that the non-legislated research advisory committee will meet twice a year, with one meeting focused on research priorities and another on criminology research grants. That research advisory committee will still play a role in advising the CEO on criminology research grants through a grants subgroup. The subgroup will consist of research advisory committee members who provide a financial contribution to the grants fund. These arrangements will create a strong and independent committee structure to provide advice to the ACC board on the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre's research priorities.

I think that addresses the key points raised in relation to this bill. In conclusion, I reiterate that the proposed merger is not about cutting the staff functions or cost of either the AIC or the ACC. It is about leveraging strengths of both agencies to achieve the best research and intelligence outcomes for the Australian community. With the merger of the AIC into the ACC, the ACC will be better able to fulfil its role as Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, supporting and informing the efforts of law enforcement agencies around Australia. Similarly, the new Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre in the ACC will continue to prepare and disseminate world-leading criminological research, which informs our understanding of the trends and developments in crime and justice. In this way, the bill delivers on the government's commitment to tackle crime and keep our community safe.

Debate adjourned.