A division of the Liberal Party of Australia
ADDRESS TO THE SECOND NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PARLIAMENTARTY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES OF ANTI-CORRUPTION/CRIME BODIES
23 February, 2006
Sign Up for free e-mail updates!
Thanks very much Kim for the introduction and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. It does as Kim has mentioned fall to me and my colleague Duncan Kerr, who is the Deputy Chairman, to represent the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission at this conference today.
Actually my representation has to be vicarious as I don’t formally become part of this Committee until next Tuesday.
But as a practising lawyer many many years ago, and previously as Kim mentioned, part of the Joint Statutory Committee oversighting the National Crime Authority, I’m delighted again to have the opportunity to be involved in the fight against organised crime and corruption in Australia through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission.
I know the title of our Committee is a bit of a mouthful so I intend to refer to it in this presentation simply as the PJC and similarly I’ll refer to the Australian Crime Commission as the ACC.
The last conference of Parliamentary Oversight Committees of anti-corruption and crime bodies was held in Perth two and a half years ago as you know. Unfortunately the PJC was not able to be represented on that occasion but from the report on the conference I believe that it was a very worthwhile event.
I’m hoping that this conference will be equally successful and useful. The purpose of my presentation today is to provide you with an update of recent activities of the PJC while Duncan Kerr this afternoon will give a paper looking at the major challenges we face. But given that we weren’t represented at the last conference and some of you may have had little background on the commonwealth’s role in all this, I think it is probably appropriate for me to spend just a few minutes, acknowledging that I am the only thing that stands between you and lunch at the moment, on the background to the ACC and the Parliamentary Joint Committee.
The ACC came into operation on the 1st of January 2003 and combined the operations of three existing organisations, the National Crime Authority, the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments. The role of the ACC is to lead the fight against organised crime in Australia and it does this in three ways.
By collecting, analysing and disseminating criminal intelligence, by conducting investigations and intelligence operations and by participating in joint operations and task forces with partner agencies.
The ACC’s latest annual report indicated that as at the 30 June 2005, it had a staff of some 574 people which included 157 police and task force staff on secondment to the ACC.
The ACC’s head office is in Canberra and it has regional offices in Sydney Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. It’s budget for the current financial year is some $76.3 million.
The day to day operations of the ACC are managed by a Chief Executive Officer, Alistair Milroy, who reports to the board. The board comprises the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police who also chairs the board, the Secretary of the Attorney General’s Department, the CEO of the Australian Customs Service, the Chairperson of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Director General of ASIO, the Commissioner or head of the police force in each state and territory and the CEO of the ACC.
The key aspect of the board’s role is to determine the priorities of the Australian Crime Commission. It is worth emphasising here that the make up of the board is such that it is not just a creature of the Commonwealth Government; it is obviously, because the heads of the police forces of each state and territory are on the board, a national Australian Crime Commission.
In turn, this board reports to an intergovernmental Committee which is made up of the Commonwealth Minister for Justice and Customs, who is the Chair and all state and territory Police Ministers.
The ACC has a wide range of investigatory powers, they are authorised to conduct searches, controlled operations, surveillance activity, telecommunications intercepts and assume identities. Additionally the ACC has power to conduct examinations and to order production of documents and ‘things’. These are significant additional powers because the normal privilege against self incrimination does not apply to the ACC and witnesses can be compelled to give evidence.
Like a Royal Commission these coercive powers allow it to take initiatives which are outside the scope of legally acceptable criminal investigations. But the ACC’s use of its powers depends o the determination of the board; it cannot act without that prior authorisation. So the ACC is not another police force and it is quite different from the Australian Federal Police which investigates Commonwealth criminal offences. The ACC’s work is focused on nationally significant criminal activity and it takes a much broader and strategic approach.
So what roles over the committee does the PJC have? Section 55 of the ACC Act sets out the duties of the Parliamentary Joint Committee and they are, to monitor and to review the performance of the ACC of its functions, to report on any matters relating to the ACC or connected with the performance of its functions to which, in the opinion of the Committee, the attention of Parliament should be directed, to examine each Annual Report of the ACC, to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and to report any change which the Commonwealth or which the Committee thinks is desirable to the ACC and also to inquire into any question referred to the Committee by either House of Parliament.
Significantly the committee may not undertake any intelligence operations or investigate criminal activities itself or to even reconsider the findings of the ACC in relation to a particular operation or investigation.
As a Joint Committee, the PJC comprises five Senators and five MP’s from the House of Representatives. The usual make up of the Joint Committee is five members from the Government, four members from the Opposition and a member the minor parties or an independent.
It’s noteworthy that in the hurley burley of national politics the members of this Committee have traditionally taken a by-partisan approach to their work, with the result being that PJC Reports and the recommendations they contain are usually unanimous.
I believe that this reflects very well on the members of the PJC and is the reason its work is treated with respect by the Government and by the public.
It is important I think to realise that the PJC is separate from the Executive Government, while it certainly does have a cooperative relationship with the Minister for Justice and Customs, it does not work at the direction of the Commonwealth Government.
Apart from its key role of monitoring the ACC as required by the Act, the PJC also investigates other key issues of interest as opportunities arise. These inquiries can be self generated or they can be referred by the Parliament or maybe suggested by the Minister for Justice and Customs.
Where possible the PJC holds public inquiries, it calls for submissions by advertising the inquiry and writing to interested groups and individuals around Australia. Public hearings are usually held in the major centres around Australia and the final report on each inquiry is tabled in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Each year, the PJC conducts a thorough examination of the ACC’s Annual Report. Other major inquiries the Committee has undertaken in the last two years include reports on cyber crime, a report that was tabled in march 2004, it also reported trafficking of women for sexual servitude, the original report for that was tabled in June 2004 with a supplementary report tabled in August last year. And it has also reviewed the Australian Crime Commission Act, a report that was tabled just last November.
The Committee has just commenced an inquiry into amphetamines and other synthetic drugs in Australia and that will be the main focus of the Committee over the coming months.
Whilst the Committee’s reports into the ACC Annual Report, the trafficking of women and cyber crime have all made valuable contributions, the Committee believes its review of the ACC, which was completed only three months ago was one of its major investigations during its time.
The Committee’s review of the ACC Act enabled the Committee to assess at a strategic level the continuing relevance, effectiveness and accountability of the Australian Crime Commission and the wide powers that it does yield in the national interest.
The terms of reference of the review included the PJC itself, since as a creature of the ACC Act it was logical that the review should encompass an evaluation of the Committee’s work. As the Committee couldn’t very well review itself, a Professor James Davis, an Emeritus Professor of Law at the Australian National University was asked to undertake an independent assessment of the PJC’s activities and its continuing relevance.
The inquiry was advertised nationally in August and some 27 submissions were received from interested parties and public hearings were held in which 43 witnesses gave evidence. The final report was tabled in the Senate on the 10th of November last year, which basically found that the ACC was a robust and dynamic organisation which had achieved its key objectives. Things can always be improved and the Committee’s report contained 18 recommendations relating to regulatory and legislative change, accountability and integrity issues as well as matters of staffing resources and the ACC examination practice and procedure. The Committee believes that if the proposed changes are adopted by the Government, the Australian Crime Commission will be an even more effective organisation than it is at the present time.
Ladies and gentlemen my guests are as I say, with lunch are fast approaching, I’m sure will be relieved to know that I wont be discussing that Report in detail, suffice to say though that it is seen as the most important inquiry the Committee has undertaken in recent years. Finally, what did Professor David say about the Parliamentary Joint Committee itself?
His assessment was included as appendix 3 to the Committee’s Report on the ACC Act and I quote from his conclusions “it is my view that the statutory charter of the Parliamentary Joint Committee as contained in Section 55 of the Act continues to be as appropriate to the current ACC as it was to the original National Crime Authority in 1984. It continues to be essential that Parliament maintains a watching brief over the activities of such a powerful body as the ACC and since Parliament as a whole cannot realistically maintain the watching brief, its role is fully and completely played by its surrogate, the Parliamentary Joint Committee. Further more the Committee has demonstrated,” continuing with Prefessor Davis’s report, he said “the committee has demonstrated by its activities over the last few years that with the exception of the question of scrutinising the exercise of the ACC’s special investigative powers, it remains effective in fulfilling the role of maintaining oversight of the Australian Crime Commission’s operations together with initiating policy changes that flow from the Committee’s longer term view of the fight against organised criminal activity”
So ladies and gentlemen I hope that does give you an update and insight into the work of the national Parliamentary Committee and the Australian Crime Commission and the work that both do. I do thank you all for the opportunity to update you on the Commonwealth PJC and I look forward to learning a lot during the afternoon and tomorrow morning on the work that your various committees do right around Australia. Thanks very much.