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

by leave—I will not take too much of the committee's time. I did present the report some time ago in the House, but I was a little constrained in time when I did, so there are a number of things I want to briefly mention that I think are very relevant. I did not get the opportunity when I presented the report to acknowledge the good work done by the secretariat of this committee. This very lengthy report Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime was compiled over approximately two years.

I would particularly like to express my thanks to the secretariat: to the secretary, Mr Jon Bell; the senior research officer, Mr Bill Bannear; and the admin officer, Rosalind McMahon. As I said, this report has been developed over a number of years and, as a consequence, a number of other people played a very significant role, in particular Tim Watling, who was the secretary up until recently; Dr Shona Batge; Dr Jacqueline Dewar; Dr Tim Kendall; Dr Robyn Clough; Nina Boughey; Danielle Oldfield; and Victoria Robinson-Conlon.

I also acknowledge the very good work of this committee over a number of years undertaken by its then chair, Senator Steve Hutchins. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Senator Hutchins comes from a background which is certainly not in law enforcement. But he saw in this committee a significant opportunity not simply to undertake the primary role of the committee, which was to oversight the Australian Crime Commission, and more recently, the Australian Federal Police, but also identifying the role of this committee, trying to make a difference in the law enforcement space, trying to provide the regulatory support for those men and women who are brave enough to put on a police uniform and protect the community to ensure that they have the resources that they need and, more importantly, the regulatory and legislative support they need to undertake their vital work, which is to protect our communities.

I express my gratitude to Senator Steve Hutchins. I think the senator has played a very good role and provided leadership in this committee. He certainly had a passion for ensuring that this committee did what it aimed to do from the outset, which was to make a difference. Whether it be in the delivery of this particular report or in other measures that have been subject to this committee's recommendations, such as unexplained wealth and measures which are designed to combat serious and organised crime, I praise the efforts of Senator Hutchins. I would also like to put on record that, under his chairmanship, not once was a minority report delivered by this committee. It has been a truly bipartisan approach to law enforcement, and I think that is one of the virtues that he has been able to bring to bear as chair of the committee. Hopefully, in that respect I can continue in that role as I now take over as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

One of the things I have often spoken about in this place is criminal enterprise, and we address that again in this report. I know a lot of people still take the view that is a game of cops and robbers, but modern-day criminal enterprise is certainly no game in terms of the people involved or the enterprises they undertake. One thing that is clear—and I think this is the modern thinking of law enforcement—is that it is an enterprise; it is a business. It is a nefarious business but nevertheless a business. It is a business that has a profit motive. As a matter of fact, the cost of this business to the Australian community, of the damage and everything else that it inflicts on the Australian community, is something like $15 billion annually, so it is quite substantial. I regard criminal enterprise as a business, one with a profit motive, but to address that we need to undermine the profit motive and the business model of that particular enterprise. We need to actually work with our law enforcement agencies to prevent, to disrupt and, where a crime is committed, to apprehend. But is in respect of prevention and disruption that I would like to briefly speak about.

The primary role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement is to oversee the activities of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. They are organisations that are extraordinary in various ways. Certainly, they both have extraordinary powers—the Australian Crime Commission in particular. They have coercive powers to force the giving of evidence. One of the reasons we oversight these two bodies is because of those extraordinary powers. The exercising of these powers is an infringement of civil liberties, but the government and previous governments, in their wisdom, have been able to take a responsible attitude in balancing the liberties and safeguards of our communities.

A role of this committee is to oversight law enforcement agencies, principally the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police but also other state and territory law enforcement bodies. The commissioner of police in each state and territory is on the board of the Australian Crime Commission. We are moving to ensure that there are not windows of opportunity for criminal enterprise to be able to play one state off against another. One thing that has become clear is that there is no point in looking at crime statistics for one state vis a vis another. Criminal enterprise and the criminals who run these enterprises do not go and look at the Constitution or at a map when deciding to plan their next endeavour. They will, however, look to loopholes in legislation—such as the ability of various agencies to do wire taps, telephone interceptions and things like that. Windows of opportunity will invite criminal elements to become involved and do significant damage to our communities.

Through this inquiry the committee brought down some clear recommendations to tighten up and strengthen the current regime for aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards. Having one of these cards gives the holder significant access to restricted areas in our airports or our maritime ports. One of the things we have been able to identify is the amount of contraband that comes through our ports at the moment, and we think that both the ASIC and MSIC regimes need to be significantly strengthened.

The ASIC and MSIC regimes came in following the September 11 attack, and it was very much to ensure that people working in the vicinity of our ports and airports were not likely to be involved in terrorist operations in those areas. Things have moved on from there. Whilst terrorism is always going to be significant to us and something we should never take for granted—we should never take our feet off the throats of those who could possibly be involved in those activities—significant damage is being done. And it is not just financial damage—the $15 billion I spoke about earlier; for every crime that is committed, there is a victim of crime.

Therefore, one of the things we strongly recommend is that, if there is compelling criminal intelligence that someone is involved in serious or organised crime, that should be a reason for withdrawing ASIC or MSIC cards and thereby withdrawing their access to aviation or maritime ports. We have attempted through the course of this report to ensure that we extend the good work that has flowed since September 11 in looking at the prevention of access to our ports and airports by people who may have an interest in a terrorist related endeavour. However, we think that, in view of airports and in particular seaports being the main point of entry for a lot of contraband, particularly illegal drugs and precursor chemicals, this is an area where not only do we need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to police those sectors effectively but the community should also be comforted in the knowledge that people who have access to and work in and about those facilities are not engaged, directly or indirectly, in criminal activity and, as a consequence, helping to facilitate the importation of drugs or other illicit material.

A number of things that flow through in this report do probably raise the concerns of those who are very much the bastions of civil liberties. I understand that. As a matter of fact, many laws that we make in this place, in one way and another, affect one's freedoms. Given the dimensions of criminal enterprises and also the significant financial and physical harm that occurs as a consequence of these enterprises, we are certainly trying to move to address those issues to ensure that our police have the necessary backing so that they can do the job we require of them in protecting our community. In addition to that, we should be taking all steps possible to assure the community that the people associated with our wharves and our airports are of such a calibre that we have a reasonable expectation that they are not involved in criminal activity.

Once again, I praise the efforts of Senator Steve Hutchins in leading this inquiry and I also acknowledge the significant contribution of Senator Steve Fielding, who has also just retired from the Senate. Senator Fielding served on this committee for the last two years and he was involved in this inquiry. I know that he had very passionate feelings about this, particularly about protecting, as he saw it, the community of Victoria. I commend this report to the House.

Debate adjourned.