Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to make this contribution to the debate on the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016. The Australian Labor Party has a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption. We are committed to fighting corruption in any form, be it corruption in business, corruption in politics, corruption in unions or corruption in law enforcement. This commitment is backed up by a very strong track record in government. In government, federal Labor took important steps to ensure government integrity. We introduced whistleblower protections for public servants, we set up a lobbying code of conduct and a lobbyist register, and we implemented a code of conduct for the first time for ministerial staff. We also took steps to prevent corruption within law enforcement. We expanded the powers of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and we strongly supported the then Australian Crime Commission.

The bill before us implements a number of changes to Commonwealth laws to assist state anti-corruption bodies. Labor supports state and territory efforts to tackle corruption. We believe that state anti-corruption bodies, such as the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the new New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, are a vital part of our national integrity system and play a critical role in ensuring public confidence in law enforcement. The bill before us updates a number of Commonwealth laws to provide the Victorian IBAC and the new NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission with powers to support their investigative activities. The bill updates Commonwealth legislation to provide these two bodies with the same powers as equivalent state and territory anti-corruption bodies, such as the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission. Schedule 1 of the bill replaces references in Commonwealth legislation to the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission with its replacement body, the New South Wales Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. As part of this update, the bill removes the Police Integrity Commission from the list of criminal law enforcement agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act—or what we commonly call in this parliament the data retention legislation—and replaces it with the new LECC.

Being listed as a criminal law enforcement agency under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act would enable LECC officers some pretty significant powers. In certain circumstances, they would be able to apply for stored communications warrants to access SMS messages and emails, require telecommunications carriers to preserve all communications relating to specific persons, and authorise the disclosure of telecommunications data prospectively for up to 45 days. These are very significant powers and have the potential to greatly affect people's privacy. It is for this reason that the bill before us was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, for review pursuant to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. That happened because of a reform that Labor put forward to the data retention legislation in the last parliament.

The PJCIS has considered the proposed legislation and particularly this question of substituting the Police Integrity Commission with the LECC on the list of criminal law enforcement agencies. The PJCIS has found that the investigative powers being provided to the LECC in the bill are approximately the same as those currently available to the Police Integrity Commission. However, while the nature and type of the LECC's investigative powers will be the same as the PIC, the range of conduct that may be subject to investigation has changed slightly. Despite this, the PJCIS in its review found that the powers of the new LECC will be comparable to those of other integrity bodies in other Australian states such as the New South Wales ICAC, the Victorian IBAC and the Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission. It is in light of those findings that the PJCIS supported the inclusion of the LECC in the list of criminal law enforcement agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and recommended that this bill be passed.

Labor very much support state and territory efforts to tackle corruption. We also believe it is important to properly scrutinise legislation which may affect peoples' privacy, and it has been terrific to see that the reform and the PJCIS review are working so well. Following the scrutiny of this proposed legislation through the PJCIS review process, Labor will support the passage of this bill.

Alongside the changes I have talked about, there are some additional changes contained in this bill that relate to processes of crime legalisation. Specifically, the bill will close a loophole which currently allows criminals to use the exploits of their crimes through different financial structures that they can create to do so. In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Western Australia found that under current federal proceeds of crime legislation, a property will be considered to be 'lawfully acquired' if the initial deposit for the property is paid for with legitimate money even if the mortgage repayments on that property are made using proceeds of crime. This is obviously a significant loophole that would allow criminals to funnel the money they make from their crime into property investments, and that is something that cannot be allowed under our processes of crime regime. The bill will insert a new paragraph into section 336A of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which will see that issue addressed, and the change will ensure that property will be 'lawfully acquired' if the payments that are used to acquire and retain the property, either directly or indirectly, are also 'lawfully acquired'.

Subparagraph 336A(c)(i) will address situations where a person makes mortgage repayments using unlawfully obtained money, as this money is used to discharge a security on that person's legal and equitable interest in the property. It also covers rental payments made using unlawfully obtained money, which enables criminals to retain their properties. Subparagraph 336A(c)(ii) will address situations where a person obtains money under a loan contract, then pays off that loan using unlawfully obtained money. Finally, subparagraph 336A(c)(iii) will address situations of 'layered' liabilities which can be used to avoid penalties under the current proceeds of crime regime. They include, for example, situations where a person uses unlawfully obtained funds to discharge a loan, then uses the money from that first loan to discharge debts owed under a second loan, and then uses the second loan to purchase a property.

The Commonwealth proceeds of crime regime is very important in the way that we try to tackle crime in Australia. It deters people from engaging in criminal activity by reducing the profits of the potentials of their crime, and it prevents crime by diminishing the funds that criminals can use for future crime. We are very pleased to see this amendment being made to try to tighten up our proceeds of crime legalisation. We support the closing of the loophole and the continued effectiveness of the proceeds of crime legislation.

In conclusion, this bill provides a range of important and necessary measures to bring our Commonwealth laws up to date with changes in state laws and to close the loophole that I have discussed in the proceeds of crime regime. Labor supports this bill and its many measures to assist state and federal agencies to combat crime and corruption.

See this speech in context