House debates

Wednesday, 21 June 2006

Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006; Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006; Law Enforcement (Afp Professional Standards and Related Measures) Bill 2006

Second Reading

11:56 am

Photo of Michael HattonMichael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Disgraceful. But there is more; lastly:

(5)
is opposed to the Government’s proposed system of adding and subtracting agencies other than the AFP and ACC by regulation, noting such a system would effectively allow the Minister a veto over corruption investigations”.

Taking into account the fact that absolutely Customs should be involved here, there is a strong case that Immigration should be involved, when you look at past practice.

Our amendment goes to the core of the whole question of whether or not there is an adequate system of administration. If you introduce legislation with the shortest second reading speech I have ever seen—there are probably about 100 words in it—if you say, ‘The focus of this is so narrow that we really do not have to go into much of the detail,’ and if you then say, ‘It may affect government agencies, but we’ll just make up a shopping list and the minister can either add a few to the shopping list or knock them off simply by determining that and whacking a regulation through so they are off the shopping list and out of the oversight of this,’ and so it is all done as a governmental driver, then you would have to question the integrity of the process of setting up an Integrity Commissioner, having that Integrity Commissioner involved in law enforcement and having appropriate powers. We would argue that the self-generation of investigations under this bill is not sufficient. Even if the commissioner has information come to him or his staff and he generates a report, there is still the fact that with a single stroke of the pen the minister can say, ‘That’s out of your purview altogether.’ That creates a situation where the integrity of the whole process can be pulled to pieces.

The government does not seriously understand, appreciate or take into account the fundamental demands of being in government and of ensuring not only that its agencies are seen as full extensions of the government but also that the people working for those agencies are under the full purview of the Integrity Commissioner. The very narrowness of the principal bill is its chief problem. Historically, if you look at this issue you see that the source of corrupt activity is not to be found in the normal sorts of operations of the Australian Federal Police, who do a wonderful job; it is to be found in the exceptions. If this commissioner is to really do his work and if his staff are to be put to the job and to do it effectively, then we need all of those relevant government agencies and organisations to be brought within its span, not to be able to be knocked off the shopping list at the minister’s whim. This is a significant bill and I commend it. I also commend our amendment to the bill to the House for its consideration, particularly by the minister. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments