Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee’s report entitled Inquiry into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006: interim report.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

I am very pleased to speak tonight to the tabling of the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity into the terms and operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. As the committee chair, I will begin by thanking the deputy chair, Senator Johnston, and all my fellow committee members for their work on this inquiry. On behalf of the committee, I thank everyone who appeared before us or who made submissions to the inquiry—and especially those who took the time to do both.

Can I also, on behalf of the committee, thank the secretariat and support staff for their diligence, professionalism and hard work. I spoke last year in recognition of the great contribution made to the committee’s work and to the work of the parliament by the departing committee secretary, Jacqui Dewar. Can I take this opportunity to welcome the new committee secretary, Tim Watling, who is continuing the national parliament’s tradition of very high quality public service in support of elected members like myself. I would also like to thank Shona Batge, who acted as committee secretary in the intervening period, and Robyn Clough, who has continued her valuable role as principal research officer throughout.

The review of the act that forms the legislative basis for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is timely, considering we are three years into the existence of this agency, and considering that it was always envisaged that the scope, powers and responsibilities of the commission and the commissioner, would be reviewed and adjusted as it developed. The review also provides the opportunity to consider ACLEI’s position and function with respect to the current policy environment and to ensure that the act enables the commissioner to respond to the challenges inherent in that environment. Examples include the heightened public expectation of government and government agencies when it comes to transparency and accountability in their operations and decision making and the imperative, at both the domestic and international level, to maintain law enforcement integrity arrangements and standards.

I have noted in the past the fact that one of ACLEI’s founding rationales is the particular vulnerability of law enforcement agencies to infiltration or corruption because of the areas in which they operate and the nature of their work—largely decentralised, with officers having a high degree of discretion and autonomy with frequent exposure to criminal elements. It is out of recognition of a similar level of corruption risk that this interim report recommends the immediate extension of ACLEI’s jurisdiction to include the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. It has been noted, both by ACLEI and by the chief executive officer of Customs, that the intrinsic aspects of Customs work, essentially functioning as a law enforcement agency, make the agency a target for infiltration or corruption, especially by serious and organised crime.

Just as ACLEI was not established in response to any particular instance of corruption or any evidence of systemic integrity shortcomings within the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission, this recommendation to extend ACLEI’s scope is not born of any concern for the integrity or propriety of the current operation of the Customs and Border Protection Service per se. Indeed, the committee notes and commends the work undertaken by Customs to improve its internal integrity arrangements. Nevertheless, the committee believes that those existing processes will be complemented and strengthened by the addition of ACLEI’s external scrutiny and corruption prevention assistance.

The recommended immediate extension of ACLEI’s jurisdiction will have resource implications, so the committee further recommends that the government provide the necessary additional staff and funding for this purpose. There is significant evidence telling us that anticorruption and integrity systems and oversight should not wait for the malaise of corruption to break out but rather should be applied as part of a program and a culture of constant vigilance. That was the approach that gave rise to the creation of ACLEI in the first place and it is the same logic that recommends the extension of ACLEI’s scope to cover the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

A number of the further recommended changes to the act follow this essential logic—that prevention is always better than a cure—none more than the recommendation to include explicit corruption detection and prevention functions under section 15 of the act. These additions will remove any existing ambiguity about the role of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and will provide a clear legislative basis for the commissioner’s work in an area that the ACLEI committee considers central to a proactive and comprehensive approach to law enforcement integrity in Commonwealth agencies.

This interim report by the ACLEI committee on its review of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act is an instalment in what has been a steady, judicious program of looking to see how the integrity commission and the work of the commissioner can be better framed and better supported. The committee’s final report on its review of the act will be presented to the House later this year. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context