House debates

Monday, 22 August 2011

Committees

Law Enforcement Committee; Report

10:53 am

Photo of Chris HayesChris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Australian Federal Police 2009-10.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—In presenting the report I would like to indicate that the jurisdiction of the committee has recently widened to include the Australian Federal Police through the provisions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010. The committee now has a duty to examine each annual report of the Australian Federal Police and to report to the parliament on matters appearing in it and matters arising out of it in respect of the annual report itself.

The committee has therefore undertaken the first examination of the performance of the Australian Federal Police in 2009-10, and has found that the AFP has fulfilled all its reporting requirements. As is noted by the AFP commissioner, Tony Negus, in the AFP's first appearance before the committee:

… this is a significant milestone in the oversight of the AFP.

The AFP is the primary law enforcement agency through which the Australian government enforces Commonwealth laws. As Australia's national police force the AFP provides a range of investigation and operational support, security risk management, security vetting and information services to assist the public.

The nature of the AFP and what is required of it has changed significantly recently, and a greater focus is now cast on national and international operations. The AFP largely met its agreed performance indicators, with one exception: the Drug Harm Index. This is a measurement of the cost avoided by drug harm due to seizures and interdictions, and they achieved a result of $473 million. This actually fell short of the domestic target for the Drug Harm Index, which was $886 million. The committee heard that the Drug Harm Index is a complex measurement that has been developed with the University of Queensland as an innovative way to estimate the social harms around narcotics and in the broader return to the community as a result of investment in law enforcement.

However, it can be unduly influenced by a large number of seizures. The report notes that in 2010:

While total seizures of drugs by Federal agencies rose significantly during the reporting period, the total weight of drugs seized was lower than in previous years …

The AFP advised the committee that in response to that it launched an operation called 'Operation Novo'. This targeted parcel post, where people were mailing large volumes of small amounts of drugs through the post. As a result, 25 people were arrested in Australia and a number of others in South America. The AFP conducted a public campaign to prevent this type of drug importation, effectively: if you send drugs to Australia through the mail in small amounts you will be caught.

In February 2011 the ANAO presented a performance audit report into the AFP to parliament, Management of the implementation of new policy initiatives. This examined the AFP's management and implementation of new policy initiatives through which the AFP has grown substantially over the last decade. Whilst the AFP's performance and effectiveness remained high during this growth period, the ANAO identified a need for the agency to improve its implementation of new policies. It made four recommendations relating to internal governance, risk management, organisational capability and the oversight of new policy implementation. The AFP has endorsed all of these recommendations, and the committee looks forward to that implementation over time.

In the limited time I have can I just indicate that in February 2010 the AFP also opened the Australian Illicit Drug Data Centre, which analyses and helps to build a picture of drug distribution across Australia. It incorporates a number of existing functions within the AFP and two new projects which are funded through the proceeds of crime. The first of these is Profiling Australia's Drug Capacity, to develop a scientific basis for monitoring geographic regions, production methods and precursor use of supply of drugs in Australia. The second is the formal risk management methodologies for precursor chemicals.

We should be very proud of the Australian Federal Police. The committee applauds their engagement with us and looks forward to a very positive relationship in the future.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Australian Crime Commission 2009-10.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—the committee has a duty to examine each annual report of the Australian Crime Commission and to report to the parliament on any matters appearing in or arising out of it. The committee has therefore examined the Australian Crime Commission's account of its performance in 2009-2010 and has found that the ACC has fulfilled all its reporting requirements.

2009-2010 was a landmark year for the Australian Crime Commission after a period of significant change. The CEO, Mr John Lawler, described the agency as continuing to define a valuable role, adding value to the work of partner agencies in their pursuit of serious and organised crime. The Australian Crime Commission continues to unite the fight against serious and organised crime, operating as a conduit and a point of fusion for criminal intelligence across the country. In this respect, the committee was pleased to hear that the newly established criminal intelligence fusion capability has already identified 53 previously unknown serious and organised crime targets.

The ACC largely met its agreed performance indicators; however, only 67 per cent of partner agencies strongly agreed that their understanding of the overall criminal environment has increased as a result of the ACC's intelligence. The ACC has expressed its intention to improve upon this result and noted that the key performance indicators have since been adjusted to refer to the understanding of the serious and organised criminal environment to better reflect the ACC's intelligence.

A major issue that arose during the examination of the annual report was the authorisation process around controlled operations. The Commonwealth Ombudsman raised concerns in the report last year in the course of the annual briefing with the committee regarding the extension of controlled operations beyond the three months in a way that may have bypassed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal oversight mechanism established by legislation. The committee used the opportunity to consult with both the ACC and the Ombudsman regarding this issue and has made recommendations that would clarify the application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's oversight in cases where controlled operations undergo significant change in addition to an extension of time. The committee is aware, however, that the effectiveness of controlled operations may require flexibility in the face of evolving case circumstances. Given the level of complexity and the global reach of criminal enterprise, a further review of the controlled operations regime may be appropriate to ensure that it remains an effective tool in the fight against serious and organised crime.

The report also provided details of three special intelligence operations which focused on the gathering of intelligence around particular criminal activity in 2009-10. These included intelligence operations into the illicit firearms market in New South Wales, amphetamine type stimulants and new synthetic drugs, and national Indigenous violence and child abuse. In addition, five special investigations designed to disrupt and deter criminal groups through the collection of evidence and intelligence took place in 2009-10. These investigations broadly related to high-risk crime groups.

Just by way of indicating the success of the Australian Crime Commission over the 2009-10 period, 102 people were charged, 96 convictions were achieved, $630,000 of proceeds of crime were restrained, $2.53 million of proceeds of crime were forfeited, approximately $10 million in tax was recovered or tax assessments issued, $13.7 million in cash was seized, and $74 million worth of illicit drugs was seized and therefore did not get to the markets within our community.

On behalf of the committee can I say that we recognise this was a most successful year for Australia's premier criminal intelligence agency. I also pay regard to the secretariat, Dr Jon Bell and Bill Bannear, and thank them for their assistance, which is invaluable. I commend the report to the House.