Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report on the integrity of Australia's border arrangements, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has today tabled the report from our longstanding inquiry into the integrity of Australia's border arrangements. This inquiry investigated how well government agencies which work to secure our border are able to protect themselves from infiltration and corruption by transnational, serious and organised crime elements who seek to subvert Australia's borders. The committee has found that overall our law enforcement agencies are clear eyed about the risk environment and have adopted appropriately robust mechanisms to seek out infiltration and corruption when it happens. The committee also found that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, has performed its functions well in investigating potential breaches of border agencies' integrity. Importantly, ACLEI has improved its processes to upskill law enforcement agencies in both corruption detection and prevention strategies to stop corruption and infiltration before either has a chance to take effect. However, a key challenge remains to ensure that law enforcement agencies work together in a more-coordinated fashion to tackle integrity risk factors. Every chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

The committee found that improvements could be made in developing an overarching strategy to target the types of serious crime and corruption experienced in the unique environment of Australia's border agencies. The committee noted that successive Australian governments have taken significant action to improve border related functions to ensure those processes maintain their integrity and continue to protect Australians. These changes have included strengthening the approvals regime for maritime and airport security cards, but there is more to do. The committee has recommended the Australian government consider further streamlining the number of identity-card-approving authorities and creating a central register. The committee's key recommendation is that Australian government law enforcement agencies develop, in consultation with ACLEI, a coordinated serious crime and corruption strategy with a particular focus on corruption at Australia's borders. A further recommendation is that Home Affairs and the department of water and the environment develop better consistency across their integrity and anticorruption frameworks, including developing site-specific approaches.

As part of this inquiry a delegation of the committee travelled to New Zealand and Vanuatu to understand the integrity frameworks of those near-neighbour countries and how individual initiatives or aspects of those frameworks might be relevant for Australia. I didn't have the benefit of going on that visit, but I've seen the photos. I was quite envious of those committee members who had the opportunity for that experience. The committee would like to again extend the thanks of the committee to the governments of New Zealand and Vanuatu for their openness to our discussions and for the strength of our ongoing partnerships to tackle transnational, serious and organised crime in the Pacific region.

I would like on behalf of the committee to thank secretariat staff who were involved in producing this report: Mr Sean Turner, the former secretary of the committee; Ms Kate Gauthier, principal research officer; Ms Alice Clapham, administrative officer; and Ms Stephanie Gill, administrative officer. I would like to conclude by thanking all the committee members involved in the production of this report, including our deputy chair, Senator Bilyk, who's provided wonderful support to me on the committee in my capacity as chair. I know Senator Bilyk gets embarrassed when I thank her in this place for that assistance, but I do enjoy working with Senator Bilyk. I note Senator Bilyk has some additional comments but certainly does agree, as I understand, with the recommendations of the committee.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity's report of our inquiry into the integrity of Australia's border arrangements. As Deputy Chair of this committee, I've had the opportunity to work closely on this inquiry over the last three parliaments. I would like first to express my particular thanks to all the committee secretariat staff, as Senator Scarr just has, who do an enormous amount of work in order to make inquiries happen and have reports written. I would also like to particularly thank Sean Turner, Pothida Youhorn, Kate Gauthier, Alice Clapham and Stephanie Gill. I would like also to thank the various members and senators who have participated on this committee over many years that the inquiry has been going and, of course, pay particular thanks to the current chair, Senator Scarr, for his ability to have a rational and frank discussion. This inquiry investigated the integrity functions of those government agencies which work to secure our borders, including from criminal terrorists and biosecurity threats. Australia's border management agencies oversee the movement of millions of people and millions of tonnes of freight and cargo via sea and air ports and international mail delivery facilities each year.

Overall, the committee found that the integrity functions of Australia's border agencies and the relevant oversight agencies are generally responsive to the ever-changing risk environment in which they work. However, in addition to issues relating to the jurisdiction of ACLEI, the committee found that improvements could be made, including by developing an overarching strategy to target the types of serious crime and corruption experienced in the unique environment of Australia's border agencies. Greater coordination of efforts, including intelligence sharing and the development of site-specific integrity plans, would serve to make their work stronger and more effective.

The committee also reviews the operation of the aviation and maritime security card system. One way to strengthen the way these cards operate would be by creating a central register of cardholders. As mentioned, as part of this inquiry a delegation of the committee travelled to New Zealand and Vanuatu to understand the integrity frameworks of our partners in addressing the very important issue of transnational crime and corruption. As the delegation chair, I would once again like to extend my thanks to the governments of Vanuatu and New Zealand for their openness in our discussions and for our ongoing partnerships in tackling these very serious issues, specifically in the Pacific region.

Overall, Labor senators and members of the committee support the recommendations of the inquiry. However, we would like to put on the record a number of matters that warrant particular emphasis. Most significantly this inquiry has further highlighted the urgent need for a broad based, independent and powerful national integrity commission to tackle corruption. At present the jurisdiction of ACLEI is too narrow to have any chance of investigating and rooting out corruption at Australia's borders. ACLEI provided this committee with a number of extraordinary examples of jurisdictional issues preventing it from conducting investigations into extremely serious allegations of corruption. For example, an allegation that an agricultural officer was facilitating drug importation and terrorism financing was deemed not to be within its jurisdiction, as was an allegation of the acceptance of bribes to clear consignments by an agricultural officer.

The patchy nature of ACLEI's jurisdiction is having far-reaching implications for Australia's border arrangements. Corruption at Australia's borders is a national security risk. The announcement by the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General that the government would expand ACLEI's jurisdiction to include the entirety of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment was made some two years ago. Since then the government has shown no urgency to follow through on its commitment. The government continues to allow an intolerable risk to Australia's border security, and therefore to Australia's biosecurity and national security, to remain unchecked.

Last month the government finally released an exposure draft of a bill to establish the Commonwealth Integrity Commission. The proposed model includes two divisions. One of those divisions, the public sector division, would be responsible for investigating politicians and most Commonwealth public servants. The powers of the public sector division would be significantly weaker than those of ACLEI, and it would operate entirely in secret. It would not be able to self-initiate investigations into possible corruption and, unlike ACLEI, it would not even be able to make findings of corruption. The other division would be ACLEI, which would continue to operate as it currently operates but with the entirety of the DAWE.

This model has been widely criticised by legal and anticorruption experts. Several senior legal figures have even suggested that, because the public sector division could not hold public hearings and would be subject to numerous other legislated constraints, the government's model is designed to cover up corruption, not expose it. Corruption erodes public trust in governments and institutions, costs the taxpayer money and can threaten the health, safety and security of all Australians. The proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission appears to fall well short of what is needed.

Labor members would also like to record their concern about the conduct and quality of ACLEI's investigation into allegations of corruption involving the Department of Home Affairs and Crown casino, known as Operation Angove. I'm very disappointed that government members would not support these concerns about Operation Angove in the substantial committee report, and I'll tell you why. Over the course of this inquiry, Labor members of the committee asked detailed questions about Operation Angove. Those questions were prompted in large part by the poor quality of the integrity commission's public Investigation report 08/2020. The allegations investigated by Operation Angove were incredibly serious. They related to possible corruption by Home Affairs staff in relation to the provision of Australian visas for Crown VIPs, possible corruption by Australian Border Force staff in relation to the clearing of those VIPs at the Australian border and possible corruption by an individual ABF staff member who was employed by a VIP junket operator. Those matters were referred to the former Integrity Commissioner, Mr Michael Griffin AM, by the Attorney-General following an explosive report by the 60 Minutes program and a series of articles in The Sydney Morning Herald. That report was based in part on comments made by a former Crown employee turned whistleblower.

After a 12-month investigation by ACLEI, the current Integrity Commissioner concluded that there was no evidence of corrupt conduct by Home Affairs or the ABF. However, over the course of this inquiry, it became clear that ACLEI's investigation of those three corruption issues was deficient in numerous respects. For example, ACLEI did not interview a single employee or former employee of Crown; ACLEI conducted only one formal interview over the course of Operation Angove; ACLEI did not even attempt to contact the former Crown employee who spoke to 60 Minutes in relation to the provision of Australian visas for Crown VIPs; and ACLEI did not even attempt to contact any of the officials who were directly responsible for processing visa applications for Crown VIPs. ACLEI did not even follow up when ABF officers ignored requests for information, and the Integrity Commissioner's report does not even refer to the fact that the Crown junket operator who employed the serving ABF officer as an extraordinarily well-paid personal assistant was suspected of committing a range of serious criminal offences.

The Integrity Commissioner's conclusion that there was no corrupt conduct by Home Affairs or ABF staff appears to have been based principally on a desktop review of visa processing notes and other documentation or records, which, according to the commissioner's own report, were seriously deficient in a number of respects. Accordingly, Labor members are not satisfied that the Operation Angove investigation was sufficiently robust. Be assured we do not make these comments lightly. Investigations by ACLEI or by any investigative body necessarily require individuals to make difficult judgements on the basis of a complicated array of laws, facts and circumstances. However, following a careful review of Investigation report08/2020 and the commissioner's detailed responses to our questions, we believe that our concerns are warranted. This committee has a duty to monitor and review the Integrity Commissioner's performance and raise concerns when, in our view, the commissioner's performance has fallen short.

It's important to acknowledge, though, that the current commissioner assumed the role part way through the Operation Angove investigation. It is not necessary for us to apportion responsibility for the deficiencies in ACLEI's investigation between the current and the former commissioner, nor are we in a position to do so. Our comments should in no way be interpreted as a criticism of individual investigators. Nor are Labor members concerned about the performance of ACLEI more generally. ACLEI has done and continues to do very important work to a commendably high standard. Our comments are confined to one particular investigation and report.

Finally, noting that the committee is not authorised to reconsider the Integrity Commissioner's decisions or recommendations, we would also like to make it clear that we are in no way suggesting that the Integrity Commissioner's conclusion—that there was no corrupt conduct—was wrong. What we are suggesting is that the process that led the commissioner to reach that conclusion was deficient. Corruption is a serious issue, and, the general findings of this report notwithstanding, Labor members believe that the government can and must do more to stamp out corruption.

Question agreed to.