Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1):

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 7), omit “ea”, substitute “eaa”.

The Attorney has advised that the government is prepared to accept this minor amendment, although there has been one small change. The amendment that was circulated stated that the substituted lettering for the paragraph should be ‘eb’. In fact, we have been advised through the Attorney that the Parliamentary Counsel says it should be ‘eaa’. Accordingly, I have moved that amendment. I thank the Attorney for consenting to those changes.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendment (2):

(2)    Schedule 1, page 21, (line 31), after “Interception”, insert “and Access”.

This is an issue that we were dealing with today during the second reading debate on the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006. The government accepted that this change was appropriate, so it has been moved and passed in the primary bill. We move it again for this consequential amendments bill. I understand, although the Attorney will no doubt make his views known, that he has advice that these changes are not necessary. I would urge the Attorney to consider the matter—we should make sure that we are being consistent. If the changes are not needed, we do not want to be in the position where one bill is changed and the other is not. Perhaps he will enlighten the House as to why it is different in these circumstances.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her observations. She is, in fact, correct. I have taken advice on the matter and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised that the change is not necessary. The consequential amendments bill does recognise the change in name of the telecommunications act in the commencement provisions, but the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006 had not. Because of this difference it is not appropriate to agree to the opposition’s amendment. It would present further complications. Otherwise I would be obliging.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2):

(1)    Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 14), after item 46, insert:

46A  After section 35

Insert:

35AA  Disclosure of information and documents to Integrity Commissioner

        (1)    This section applies if:

             (a)    the Ombudsman, of his or her own motion, investigates any action as mentioned in paragraph 5(1)(b); and

             (b)    in the course of the investigation, the Ombudsman obtains information or a document that is, or may be, relevant to a corruption issue.

        (2)    Subject to section 35B, nothing in this Act precludes the Ombudsman from:

             (a)    disclosing the information; or

             (b)    making a statement; or

             (c)    giving the document;

to the Integrity Commissioner.

        (3)    In this section:

corruption issue has the same meaning as in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006.

Integrity Commissioner has the same meaning as in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 15, after proposed item 46A, insert:

46B  Subsection 35A(1)

Omit “section 35B”, substitute “sections 35B and 35C”.

I table an explanatory memorandum to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006. This bill is the second element of the package of three bills that will introduce major reforms for handling corruption issues and other issues relating to misconduct in Australian government law enforcement. The government introduced this legislation late in March. The bills were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for examination and report. I have already spoken generally about the committee’s review when introducing government amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Bill 2006.

In this case, amendment (1) implements the committee’s recommendation 7. It will ensure that a corruption issue that becomes apparent through an own-motion investigation undertaken by the Commonwealth Ombudsman can be referred to the commission. This supplements item 42 of schedule 1 of the bill, which already provides for referral to the commission of corruption issues identified by the Ombudsman in the course of investigating complaints. Amendment (2) remedies an omission from the bill by clarifying that a certificate issued by the Attorney-General under the proposed new section 35C to prohibit disclosure of particular ACLEI information would override the Ombudsman’s right to disclose information under section 35. This complements the existing provision protecting Australian Crime Commission information from disclosure under section 35. I commend the amendments to the House.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We support these amendments. They are improvements to the bill and Labor is happy to support them. They clarify the requirements of disclosure to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner when the Ombudsman becomes aware of a corruption issue in the course of an investigation, so obviously we are happy to support them. In fact, it was a change called for under recommendation 7 of the report by the Senate committee that dealt with this bill. This is logical. If we want to give the new body primary responsibility for investigating corrupt conduct of law enforcement agencies, then this is a sensible change.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.