Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity today to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity report, Inquiry into integrity testing. I note that other members of the committee are also present, so I will not take too much time today. With my background—a couple of years in the Federal Police and, after that, in the military police—matters to do with law enforcement have always been of great interest to me. When I look back on my time in the Federal Police in particular I can say that I certainly never saw any form of corruption. There was a time when I was working briefly in the AFP drug squad in Sydney when there were comments made about making sure that desks were cleared when particular officers of the New South Police were coming into the building for a meeting, so I suspect that there were issues with corruption in New South Wales, particularly at that point in time—this was in 1986 and 1987. But in my time in the Australian Federal Police I never saw any problems. Even to this day, when you look at the law enforcement organisations within the Commonwealth—and I refer to the AFP, the Australian Crime Commission and Customs—there is reason for all of us to have great confidence in the professionalism and standards in all cases in those organisations.

That is not to say that we should not be prepared. That is where we are at with regards to the matter of integrity testing. I will take one definition of 'integrity testing' from the report, the one from the Attorney-General's Department:

... integrity testing refers to the act of covertly placing an officer in a simulated situation designed to test whether they will respond in a manner that is illegal, unethical or otherwise in contravention of the required standard of integrity. The test must provide the subject with an equal opportunity to pass or fail the test. Depending on its severity, the consequences of failing integrity tests can include disciplinary action, termination of employment or criminal charges.

Integrity testing has a fairly brief history, first occurring, according to information received, in the 1970s in the New York Police Department.

In the submissions and evidence, there was a bit of a tendency for the focus to be on some very low-level aspects of integrity testing. The classic scenario—and I will apply this to the ACT, although obviously, as I said before, I have complete confidence in the AFP and the ACT branch of the AFP—is that of a lost wallet being handed in to a particular officer and checking to see whether that officer follows correct procedures. That was a classic integrity test—the baseline integrity test. But it was my view, and the committee truly embraced this as we moved through, that in the Commonwealth environment there is access to information that can be of great value through these law enforcement agencies—the AFP, the Crime Commission and Customs. This might be information about criminal matters or a range of other things. Criminal organisations such as bikie gangs would see great value in trying to subvert an officer of the crown within one of these agencies to try and acquire information from them. It is particularly in the area of information security that integrity testing is going to be required in the future. Any person who has the opportunity to access information should have their integrity tested.

When I was in the Australian Federal Police working in Western Australia a number of officers of the WA police came to grief, you might say, professionally because they would use the police computer system to access the licence information of ordinary members of the public. This was very low-level stuff. As I heard it and as it was reported at the time, it sometimes involved looking up the address of an attractive driver who had been pulled over. Nevertheless, there were very poor standards there. That is the thin end of the wedge in terms of information control and integrity and the need for measures to be in place to assess the risks and to assess individuals. I am sure that others will speak this morning as well on the difference between targeted and random integrity testing. As a committee, we were very fond of the notion of targeted integrity testing, which is when there is reason to look at a person's behaviour and to place in front of them opportunities to make a positive or a negative decision. Targeted integrity testing is certainly what the committee is most keen on. Recommendation 3, in fact, is that integrity testing needs to be available to those agencies that come under ACLEI's responsibility—the AFP, the Crime Commission and Customs. Those organisations need to have access to integrity testing.

I have spoken a little bit about the report. I would like to finish by reiterating that I have great confidence in the professional standards of the AFP, the Crime Commission and Customs and in the ability of ACLEI to control and to be appropriately involved in integrity testing on behalf of and together with those agencies. I do not think that we have a significant problem in this country. But the reality is that, where there is information about crimes, drugs, the government and defence contracts there will always be the opportunity for someone to make money by acquiring it. People will always try to reach out to officers of the Commonwealth to try to subvert them and get them to acquire information for them. That is why we need to have these integrity testing measures in place to make sure that action can be taken when there is suspicion. I endorse the report. The members of the committee have gotten it right with this most excellent report.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most members of this place are aware that before coming here I spent many years representing police officers within various Australian police jurisdictions. One of the things that I know is that police and law enforcement officers take the issues of integrity and honesty very seriously. I acknowledge that the member for Cowan was a police officer with both the Australian Federal Police and the military police. As he said, there have been issues in various police jurisdictions. Some of those issues were particularly brought to light by a New South Wales inquiry of 1987 that I remember very well, the Wood royal commission. That went out and used various measures in pursuing its investigations into corruption within the New South Wales Police Force.

History is often rewritten a little. In terms of that measure of corruption, it was largely contained in that particular instance to essentially one command that was operating at that stage in and about Kings Cross. That gave rise to various things, including the current popularity of the term 'underbelly'. Having worked for a long time with police officers and having grown up in a police family, I know the mindset of the police. I have interviewed police on many occasions, including police giving evidence in witness boxes. I have many times put the question directly to them as to why they chose to join the police force, knowing the rigours of the occupation and knowing all the restrictions that it puts on not only your professional but your private life. Invariably what comes back to me is that they chose to join the police to make a difference. It was the case then and in the very modern world now, when there is clearly a far more professional base to policing, it is the case too.

The other thing I would like to talk about is that the issue of organised crime was put on the agenda by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in 2008 in his National Security Statement. He elevated organised crime to be up there with terrorism. Organised crime, it was said at that stage, was costing this country between $10 billion and $15 billion a year and certainly was impacting very much on communities. Maybe some did not appreciate it because the effects do not necessarily directly impact on various members of the community, but nevertheless the community is footing the bill for those things.

Sitting suspended from 10:51 to 10:56

As I was saying, the issue of serious and organised crime was put on the national agenda by the Prime Minister's National Security Statement in 2008. What followed from that? We took various measures—some people might refer to them as draconian measures—to fight terrorism, to ensure that the Australian people would be safe, as far as possible, from a terrorist act in this country impacting on our community. Organised crime was seen for the first time as an issue of national security, and various pieces of legislation were also developed to give enhanced powers to law enforcement.

Some of these matters have been on hand for some time, but we gave bodies such as the National Crime Authority, which subsequently became the Australian Crime Commission, extraordinary powers—the powers of a standing royal commission. I referred a little earlier to the Wood royal commission, which was a very powerful commission into policing in New South Wales. There have been many inquiries into other police agencies or law enforcement agencies, but what we established in this instance was the ability to use coercive powers to attack serious and organised crime. For the first time, you could be called before this organisation—the NCA, now the ACC—and questioned. Now there is no right to silence; trying to exercise that would simply see you incarcerated until you decided to cooperate. Some would refer to these powers as draconian; many lawyers do. But they were made to give law enforcement the ability to actually fight serious and organised crime. And it is not just the Australian Crime Commission; it is the Australian Federal Police as well, and Customs.

What goes with these increases in power is the need for us to ensure that power is not being abused, and that, as far as possible, we can assure the Australian public that these agencies are free from corruption. To that end, we established the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which oversees the Australian Crime Commission and its activities, as well as, more recently, the Australian Federal Police and the activities of Australian Customs and border control. These are areas where we do need to ensure that the powers are not being abused. Where we have increased officers' powers we must ensure they are being used as intended—to protect our community.

I know the notion of integrity testing is challenging for some. But, having been around police circles for a long while, I know that whether it is specifically referred to or not it is certain that most police internal standards agencies—whether by design or by the way they construe their operations—would certainly be out there to weed out what they might refer to as 'bad apples' in their organisation. That has probably gone on for a long time. Many of these activities may have been considered illegal in themselves. For instance, setting an officer up by constructing a situation which could invoke an illegal activity such as taking of property might be construed by the courts as entrapment. Maybe in policing circles that might have been considered at one point in time as a fair effort to ensure the integrity of those officers who are operating within a particular command.

Various changes have been made, and certainly many of the state and territory jurisdictions have had integrity testing in operation now for some time, and that has been based on intelligence gathering. It has not been like the 'New York experience', as some have referred to it as, where these things occurred randomly—perhaps a wallet is dropped to see how an officer may react, et cetera. That is using a very crude example, I suppose. Most agencies have developed an ability to ensure, on the basis of intelligence, a mechanism to test officers' integrity by a specifically designed police operation. This is something that is relatively new for the Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to consider. As a consequence, we took evidence from each of the various policing agencies around the county to establish what was occurring—maybe not necessarily specifically provided for in various legislation but what was actually occurring in contemporary policing to ensure the integrity of police, and through that the community. The inquiry was initiated in July of last year. To that extent is was a relatively short inquiry, one which gave us the opportunity to take on board the evidence of the respective jurisdictions and those professional standards agencies within those jurisdictions with the responsibility of looking after professional standards within their commands.

The recommendations which have already been cited by the member for Fremantle when she delivered her report to parliament are not designed to be an impediment to policing; they are certainly designed to be a measure to ensure as far as possible that law enforcement, particularly under the Australian jurisdiction, that being the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and Customs agencies, are free from corrupt activity. We recommend in our report that this not be simply developed as a routine or ad hoc position to be adopted. It should be provided as a measure which is based on intelligence. Where police internal standards may suspect an officer then they will have the ability to construct a situation to test the integrity of an officer or group of officers. We have set guidelines for how that would occur. One of the things that we have required in respect of those integrity operations is that the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity must be advised formally of the operation being considered and also the results of its deployment.

In this respect, we see the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity being another check and balance, not only protecting the integrity of those organisations but ensuring that we operate integrity testing throughout those jurisdictions in a way that respects the intention of the provisions recommended to government. We also recommend that various pieces of legislation be amended to ensure that controlled operations can take place without jeopardising the legal status of officers, particularly those officers in the Professional Standards Command, who are undertaking these operations such that their activities do not constitute them committing an offence.

I would like to reiterate that this has all been developed with a view to ensuring the utmost integrity of our law enforcement agencies so we can assure the community that, as far as possible, the agencies will remain, as they are now, virtually corruption free. We will do everything that we can to support the work of police internal professional standards, which, by the way, also has a direct relationship, albeit at the moment not a formal relationship, with the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity. Enhancing that can only be good for professional policing and can only be good for the community.

As I say, I have spent many years representing police in most Australian police jurisdictions. I know from my ongoing contact with them that they do not see this as an impediment to them and they certainly do not see this as a slight to the integrity of their members. They do see this as a further reinforcement that we are working to ensure the ongoing corruption-free nature of policing. After all, I do not see that we are going to be winding back police powers; if anything, it will be the opposite. In order to protect and enhance community safety, I am sure greater powers will be given to policing over time. Every time we do that, we must ensure the appropriate checks and balances are in place. (Time expired)

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this brief opportunity to also speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity inquiry into integrity testing. Other speakers, I believe, have quite adequately covered the inquiry and the recommendations that came from it, but I will make some brief comments about it. I begin by saying that the committee inquired into the possible introduction of a law enforcement integrity testing framework at the Commonwealth level. It did so noting that similar processes were already available to state jurisdictions here in Australia, as well as in some of the overseas jurisdictions such as New York, London and Hong Kong. I would also say from the very outset that the report should not in any way be interpreted as a negative reflection on the professionalism and integrity of our law enforcement officers throughout the country.

The inquiry commenced, as the member for Fowler just pointed out, in July this year, although I understand some previous comments were made about integrity testing in a report of the committee in early 2010, but at that time I do not think the matter was proceeded with. I want to point out the terms of reference for the inquiry. The committee resolved to consider:

(a) the various integrity testing models, including the advantages and disadvantages of random and targeted integrity testing, effectiveness as a corruption deterrent, and possible entrapment issues;

(b) the legislative and administrative framework required to underpin an integrity testing regime;

(c) the Commonwealth agencies to whom an integrity testing regime could apply;

(d) the potential role of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity in integrity testing; and

(e) any other relevant matters.

All of those matters were adequately covered in the inquiry, even though it was a relatively short inquiry. It was interesting to hear the diverse views of the various agencies that made representations to the committee. It is certainly the case that there was no uniform view across all the agencies that made representations and who appeared as witnesses before the committee. I believe there was a majority view that integrity testing is something that should be considered at Commonwealth level, given that it already exists at state level.

The member for Fowler raised a couple of matters that I also want to discuss. He quite properly referred to the issue of entrapment, which is an issue that has been dealt with in the courts. Entrapment was a particular issue that caused concern to some of the people who made submissions to the committee. In the course of the integrity testing, if an activity is carried out that may be interpreted as entrapment, that would not only cause problems within the agency from where the particular officer came, but there is also the possibility that the process that was used to test the integrity of the person concerned could be challenged in court. As I said, that was a matter that was looked at by one of the courts at one point in time. I understand the concerns that have been raised with respect to this. However, it is one of the methods that is often used in integrity testing in other jurisdictions, and I believe that, if used in an appropriate way, it would perhaps enable the necessary authorities to carry out the testing that is required.

One of the other concerns that was raised about integrity testing across jurisdictions is cost. It is a relevant factor and should be taken into account. However, given the importance of the work that is being proposed, I believe that the issue of cost should not be used as a reason to not go ahead with integrity testing.

The last point I want to comment on is the one that I referred to in my opening remarks—that is, integrity testing is carried out in other jurisdictions even here in Australia but not at Commonwealth government level. I believe that there is no reason to argue that, if it applies in one jurisdiction, it should not apply in another. In fact, we have some Commonwealth government agencies that do some very important work. Within those agencies, the community has every right to feel absolutely confident that the work is being carried out in the most professional way and that the integrity of those officers is not in any way in question. Applying the integrity-testing framework to those jurisdictions, I believe, will provide the Australian community with that level of confidence. The suggestion and recommendation of the committee is that integrity testing commence within those agencies that come under the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—and that would be a good way to get the process up and running.

I want to commend the other members of the committee that were part of the process that we are now reporting on. Regrettably, I was not able to get to many of the committee meetings. I commend in particular the chair of the committee, the member for Fremantle, who spoke on this matter in the House on Monday. I thank the staff who assisted the committee in its work and all of those agencies who made submissions to the committee and who gave evidence before the committee. I believe that anyone who heard their presentations would have very much appreciated the insight they brought to this process and, in all cases, the professionalism with which they approached the question that was before the committee. I commend the report to the House.

Debate adjourned.