Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Leigh, just before I walked in here, I heard the member for Shortland congratulating you on your elevation to the Speaker's panel. I offer my congratulations to you as well. Certainly there is a new ceremonial spirit in these roles and I hope you will consider how you might personally imbue that new spirit. I will be waiting with bated breath to see how that spirit manifests itself.

Turning to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011, the report on this bill by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs was presented to the House yesterday and now we are discussing it in the Federation Committee. While the coalition does not have any problems with the government's response to that committee report, in terms of whether it is best practice to leave not even 24 hours between the report of that committee and then discussing it in the parliament, I think it is fair to say that it would have been more ideal had we been given more time, even though we do not object to what the government is proposing to do. While I do appreciate the rationale for the urgency given to me by government advisers this morning, I want to flag that we would prefer to legislate in a more orderly way. It seems there has been a small element of chaos this week in the government's legislative agenda and I hope that they can rectify this in future sittings.

The House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs also tabled their recommendations in relation to this legislation yesterday. I want to address what they said because I know the report was issued on behalf of all members of the committee. When any parliamentary committee, where both sides of the chamber are represented, manages to come together to make recommendations as a whole committee I think it is very important that this parliament takes serious note of the recommendations. I am sure the government has done that. So I want to talk about the government's record on law enforcement and then talk directly about the provisions in this bill and the recommendations made by the committee.

Labor's record on criminal issues in general and on border protection has been consistent in its disrespect for Australia's law enforcement agencies. Those agencies have been subject year after year, through the budgetary process, to extensive cuts in a way that is certainly detrimental to their ability to do what they are supposed to do, which is to fight crime and to win. When the Labor Party came to power they abolished the success National Community Crime Prevention Program and replaced it with what is called the Safer Suburbs Plan, essentially the same thing but with a lot less money. The Safer Suburbs program is only a vehicle for Labor to implement its election commitments in this area. Sadly, it is not ongoing beyond the three years and only $15 million was allocated to it.

In contrast, the coalition had funded $65 million for local community crime prevention initiatives. Some of those initiatives were in my electorate of Stirling and I am happy to report that they were very successful and very useful in fighting local crime in my community. I think scrapping that very successful program when they came to office was a dreadful mistake for the Labor Party and is to the detriment of law enforcement all around our country. It is particularly grievous considering the money this government has wasted since 2007. They have taken the axe to what should be considered other high priorities to make up for the fact that so much money went to things which should not have been a priority and have been exposed as scandalous government waste.

Unfortunately under this government we have also seen very serious and sustained cuts to one of the agencies which this bill addresses—that is, the Australian Crime Commission. This agency has, quite frankly, been savaged by Labor. The staffing cuts have been in the order of almost 20 per cent. These savage budget cuts have severely hampered the ability of the ACC to carry out their duties. Staff in that agency has been reduced from 688 to 556. I also note that 100 officers seconded from state and territory police forces have also been sent home. Labor's cuts to the ACC budget equate to an 8.9 per cent reduction over the forward estimates. As I said, that has resulted in almost a 20 per cent reduction in staffing numbers available to that agency. You cannot savage an agency like that and expect it to be able to continue to do its job in a professional way and at the same level as it did when it had 20 per cent more people available. Clearly, these very serious and grievous cuts are going to have an impact on the ability of that agency to fight crime. I am very disappointed that Labor's priorities have meant that they have not fully funded the ACC. Clearly this could be a challenge for us if the government does change and we get into power.

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service have been similarly savaged by this government and it has happened to them at a time when the strain on their resources is already immense because of the border protection catastrophe that Labor have created because of the silly changes they made to the successful border protection regime they inherited when they came to office. Customs and Border Protection are the country's premier agency in the protection of Australia's borders. One of the core Customs functions is to stop illicit material and other contraband entering Australia. Obviously, if their ability to do that is hampered then we are going to find more weapons on our streets and more precursors to drugs, or those drugs themselves, being smuggled into the country. Clearly, the likelihood of intercepting contraband before it gets to Australia has been vastly diminished since that agency has had its funding cut so significantly by Labor.

The cuts have resulted in Customs axing 20 per cent of its senior executive service. One in five senior executive officers have been axed as a result of Labor's spending decisions. We have a new Minister for Home Affairs in this portfolio, the member for Blaxland. I believe the test for him becoming a successful minister is whether he can carry weight with his colleagues and reinstate the savage cuts that have been made to the agencies that he is responsible for.

I want to list some of those cuts because it is vitally important that these are addressed. Labor have cut aerial surveillance within the portfolio by almost $21 million, which means that there are 2,215 fewer surveillance hours available for Customs to patrol our borders. That equates to 90 fewer days for surveillance by Customs and Border Protection to look at what is going on around our borders, particularly our northern borders where that agency is so heavily involved in dealing with Labor's border protection failures. Ninety staff were cut from Customs in the last budget on top of the 250 staff that were cut in the 2010-11 budget, and $9.3 million has been taken out of Customs in the financial year 2014-15, apparently in a plan to reduce capital spending in what is classified as low-risk organisational activities.

Labor have cut $34 million over four years for passenger facilitation at Australia's eight major international airports. When Australians are waiting in line to be processed by Customs—and those queue times are increasing—they can directly blame the Labor government for the cuts they made to the Customs budget to process passengers coming into Australia. Clearly, when you are making such enormous cuts, they are going to have a severe impact on the ability of Customs to provide that service. In last year's MYEFO, it was estimated that about $35 million will be cut from Customs over the forward estimates. This is on top of the budget cut to Customs for cargo inspection outlined earlier that has resulted in savage cuts to Customs' ability to screen cargo when it comes into Australia. There was $58.1 million cut from that budget, and that cut has meant that 25 per cent less sea cargo is inspected when it comes into Australia. A staggering 75 per cent less air cargo is inspected because of that enormous cut.

As I have outlined, what this means is that it is much harder for our law enforcement agencies to their job because the federal government are not doing theirs. The federal government are not properly screening cargo when it comes into Australia. That means that organised crime has the ability to bring things into our country, and it means that it is much harder for not only federal crime fighting agencies but also state and territory police forces to do their jobs because the federal Labor government are not doing theirs. I think that is a damning indictment on this government, and I really believe the test for the new minister is whether he has the ability to convince his colleagues that these cuts need to be reversed and that these cuts have hampered his agencies' ability to do their jobs. That is the absolute test for the new Minister for Home Affairs.

Sadly, it is not just Customs and the ACC that have attracted the savage cuts that Labor have made to our law enforcement agencies. The Australian Federal Police have also been hit hard by cuts. Labor imposed their so-called efficiency dividend, which I think is the worst form of budget management, on the AFP. This has resulted in $23.5 million being cut from the AFP's operating budget. This is on top of the staff and budget cuts that they have been forced to absorb in previous years. When Labor take the axe to Customs and Border Protection and to the Australian Federal Police, it makes their job more difficult to do and it also hampers the ability of state police forces to do their job.

It is very important that states recognise that the Commonwealth is not pulling its weight in our national law enforcement efforts and it is making the jobs of the states and territories even harder. That filters down to all of our electorates. When we see crime related to drugs, we can look directly at the federal government and say that they are not doing their job in stopping drugs or the precursors of drugs coming into Australia. That filters its way down into every area of law enforcement and every area of criminal activity, because we know that criminal activity is so heavily related to drugs.

Following on from my preliminary comments about the terrible things that Labor are doing to our law enforcement agencies and the coalition's disappointment in the way they have made these savage cuts to our law enforcement agencies: in light of the fact that they have wasted so much money in other areas, if this were a disciplined government that had exercised physical restraint then these cuts probably would not be so egregious. But the reality is that they are a government that are fiscally reckless and have wasted an enormous amount of money, and yet they have still managed not to fund these agencies properly and they have savaged the existing budget that these agencies had when they came to office. That is a shame, and that is affecting all of us in our electorates. The new Minister for Home Affairs has come into the chamber and I reiterate my call for him to look at these savage cuts, to look at the effect that they are having on the agencies that are under his control and to do all he can to reverse these cuts so that these crime-fighting agencies can do their job of fighting and stopping the crime which is such a scourge in our communities.

I will just talk about the amendments in the bill. The explanatory memorandum to the bill notes that the bill will increase transparency and reduce the complexities surrounding the procedures governing the collection, use and analysis of DNA forensic material. This is a sensible amendment and it is fully supported by the coalition. I note that it was also supported by the House committee that inquired into this bill. Secondly, the bill aims to enhance the Australian Crime Commission's information-sharing capabilities to enable the agency to share information with Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and international law enforcement intelligence bodies. Again, I think these are sensible amendments. They attract the support of the coalition and they attract the unanimous support of the committee also.

It clearly makes sense for the ACC to have the ability to share information with relevant law enforcement agencies when it is appropriate for them to do so. I was informed in my briefing this morning that the ACC suffers from some of the most restrictive rules in relation to the information that it can share and how it can share that information. I support this bill's attempts to liberalise the ability of the ACC to share information when it is appropriate. The bill also makes an amendment to provide the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity with a contempt power and to enhance the commission's capability to investigate corruption. This amendment aims to deter uncooperative witnesses by providing a quick and powerful mechanism for the integrity commissioner to deal with uncooperative witnesses. Again, this is a sensible amendment endorsed by the coalition and endorsed unanimously by the committee.

Measures in this bill also aim to combat the emergence of new and illicit substances such as meow meow and special K. The reality is that the drugs we find on our streets are constantly evolving, particularly drugs that are created through a chemical process in backyard labs. Clearly the legislative framework needs to keep up with changes that are made. I understand from my briefing this morning that it is that particular aspect of the bill that warrants the urgency with which this House has been asked to deal with the bill. I accept at face value what I was told and that is why we have been happy to debate this bill at such short notice, with the caveat that I mentioned earlier on that it is not best practice to force the chamber to look at it so quickly after the committee has completed its deliberations.

The bill also seeks to make amendments that will list additional drug substances and the quantities to be subject to the full range of serious Commonwealth drug offences. That is the measure I was just discussing about the changes that we see in relation to chemically synthetically created drugs.

The bill also makes amendments to Commonwealth parole. Currently there is no ability to refuse parole to a federal offender who is serving a sentence of imprisonment of less than 10 years, even if the corrective services agencies believe the offender should not be granted parole.

On the same subject of parole, the bill's amendments will allow the release on parole of all federal offenders to be a discretionary decision, which would be consistent with the approach the states and territories take on granting parole. Further amendments are also being made to ensure that the federal offender's parole period ends on the same day as his or her sentence and that the parole supervision period may extend to the end of the federal offender's parole period. The situation currently is that for federal offences, other than life imprisonment, the maximum parole supervision period is only three years.

If I talk about all of those changes as a whole, this was the area of controversy that the committee raised in its report that has not been accepted by the government. The committee largely accepted the provisions of this bill, but there were two things they were concerned about and the retrospective nature of the changes that were made to parole was one of them. The government has not accepted the committee's concerns that were raised in the report that they tabled yesterday, and I do support the government's approach to this particular issue. I think it does make sense for the government to have the discretion that it is seeking.

I spoke to the deputy chair of the committee—the senior coalition member of that committee, the member for Pearce—and she reiterated to me the concerns that the committee had. I know that she takes her committee work very seriously. When she endorses a recommendation for a committee that she is on, and particularly one that she is deputy chair of, she is serious about it. She raised with me that she still shared the concerns that the committee raised yesterday about the retrospective nature of these changes. But I did respectfully agree to disagree with her on that particular issue and the coalition supports the government's approach to these changes.

The bill makes an amendment that will empower state and territory fine enforcement agencies to enforce Commonwealth fines through non-judicial enforcement actions without first obtaining a court order, which is costly and time consuming. That is supported by the coalition and was supported unanimously by the committee.

Finally, the bill makes an amendment to allow a court to restrict the publication of certain matters in relation to applications for freezing orders and restraining orders to prevent the publication of information that could compromise the proceeds of crime or related criminal investigation. Again, the coalition considers that to be uncontroversial, and the committee endorsed the government's approach unanimously also. There were two issues the committee raised within its report yesterday. I have dealt with the first issue about the concerns they had about the retrospective nature of the changes to federal parole. The second issue related to the safeguards around the ACC sharing information with private sector agencies. The government have accepted the concerns that the committee raised. I note that they are going to move amendments that add to those safeguards. Again, we support the government's approach on that and I am pleased that they have taken into account what the committee raised yesterday. It obviously makes sense for there to be appropriate safeguards around the ACC sharing such information. We were briefed this morning that the ACC felt that the amendments that were being made did create a workable framework for them, so I believe that this is a sensible way for the parliament to proceed. The opposition supports this bill and we also support the minor amendments that the government will be moving at a later stage.

If I could just be indulged, I acknowledge that today represents the 150th anniversary of policing in New South Wales. I want to congratulate the New South Wales Police Force on the good work that it does. It is a police force with a very distinguished history, indeed sometimes even a colourful history, over the 150 years that it has provided policing for the state of New South Wales. I note that the Member for Fowler is very familiar with the New South Wales Police Force. I am sure that he would join with me in offering these congratulations. I note that he takes all issues of law enforcement very seriously in his role as chair of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. I also congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Honourable Mike Gallacher, for the work that he has done over the past year for policing in New South Wales and pass on my congratulations to the whole force through the New South Wales police commissioner, Mr Andrew Scipione. I am sure that everyone in the parliament will join with me in offering our good wishes on what is a very significant anniversary for that police force. I will conclude my remarks there.

Whilst the minister is in the chamber, I will repeat my call. The agencies that he has inherited from his predecessor have been savaged by cuts that his party have made to them since they came to office in 2007. That has directly hampered their ability to do their job. We will reverse some of those cuts when we come to office. That is our policy, although it is very difficult to reverse them all within the limited budgetary environment that we would inherit. I would ask him very seriously to do his job in convincing his colleagues that making those cuts was an error and to do all he can within his ability to reinstate that funding. We have had cuts of 25 per cent to sea cargo inspections. We have had cuts of 75 per cent to air cargo inspections. Every member of this House will see the results of those savage cuts in the crime statistics in their home electorates. I do not say that as a political point; I say it very genuinely. I hope that he does all he can to reverse the savage cuts that have been made to Customs, to the ACC and to the Australian Federal Police. I will conclude my remarks there.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the New South Wales police on their 150th anniversary. Like the member for Fowler, I too have a close association with the New South Wales police. I have had the opportunity to work with them and with a number of police commissioners over the last two decades. I congratulate commissioner Scipione on his good work and the work of his team. The Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service work very closely with the New South Wales Police Force on many, many areas. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate them on their 150th anniversary.

I note the comments that the shadow minister made about cuts. I would ask him to urge the shadow Treasurer to contemplate his words as well, because I note the shadow minister in the press this week said that the cutting of 11 SES positions in Customs was, as he described it, 'drastic,' yet he represents a party which is proposing, if elected at the next election, to cut the Public Service by at least 12,000 positions. That is what the shadow Treasurer said, if I recall correctly, and I am assisted by the transcript. On Q&A on 27 June last year, the shadow Treasurer said:

Well, for a start—

I emphasise the words 'for a start'—

12,000 public servants in Canberra will be made redundant over a two year period immediately upon us being elected.

I ask the shadow minister to consider the hypocrisy of the words he has uttered in this debate, criticising the government in this area and describing the cuts of 11 positions as drastic, when their own position here is to cut 12,000 positions. I would ask him to reflect on the hypocrisy of those statements.

This bill amends a number of acts that I as the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice administer. They include the Australian Crimes Commission Act 2002, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and the Customs Act 1901. The bill enhances the powers and capabilities of our law enforcement agencies to carry out their important work and includes a range of tools to fight crime. It enhances the information-sharing abilities of the Australian Crime Commission, it improves the ability of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to seize illicit substances and it provides the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity with a contempt power. These are all very good amendments and I encourage members to support them. I am very glad to see the opposition supporting this legislation.

Later in the debate the government will formally move amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act to allow the term of any Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner to be extended for two years. As the minister responsible for the administration of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I take this opportunity in this debate to explain why this amendment is important. There is no place for corruption of any kind in the public sector. The responsibility of the government is to make the public sector as corruption resistant as possible. It is an unfortunate truth that organised criminals will particularly target people working in law enforcement because of the nature of their work. The Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework identifies corruption of law enforcement officers as a method used by organised criminals to undertake and conceal illicit activities. It is therefore critically important that we put in place the right measures to address this risk. It is essential that our law enforcement agencies are leaders in mitigating corruption risks and in promoting a culture of integrity. A lot has been done in this respect in recent years, but there is always more work that can, should and needs to be done.

The role of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is to detect, disrupt and deter potential corruption in federal law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police and the former National Crime Authority. Last year, the government extended the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to cover the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Last week, I announced that I have commissioned an independent review into the first year of ACLEI's oversight of Customs. I have commissioned this review to ensure that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is implementing this new responsibility effectively and is properly equipped to discharge this crucial function. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and Customs have been working closely together over the past 12 months to build a partnership to detect, disrupt and deter corruption. After a year in operation, it is now important to examine progress and consider whether improvements are necessary.

The amendment that the government will be moving in this debate will allow the government to extend the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner's term by another two years. It will provide the flexibility for situations where the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is bedding down big reforms or undergoing extensive change, as is the case right now. The amendment will help ensure that the new responsibility of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is fully and properly implemented and that, where corruption is found, it is weeded out. It also implements a recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. The current commissioner is Mr Philip Moss, whose five-year term is due to expire in July of this year. This amendment will allow the government to consider an extension to his term.

Our law enforcement agencies do a very good job but, as I outlined, like law enforcement agencies around the world, they potentially become the targets of organised criminals. That is why, in addition to the action I have just outlined, I have also written to the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police and Customs outlining my expectations of them in detecting, disrupting and preventing corruption. I also sought their advice about what further action they believe is required to mitigate corruption risks and promote corruption resistance. The more corruption-resilient our law enforcement agencies are, and the better equipped they are, the more effective they will be in fighting organised crime. Therefore, I commend this amendment and commend the bill to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this second reading debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011. On some indulgence in addressing the matters before us today, given that today is the 150th anniversary of the New South Wales Police Force, I would like to make a few remarks about that anniversary.

As the proud son of a retired police officer—I recognise also here the member for Fowler and the member for McArthur—I know only too well the sacrifice of those who wear the blue in New South Wales. It is a distinguished service. It is populated by brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way on a daily basis for us. For that reason I think they hold a very special place in our community.

I commend the 15,993 police officers currently serving in the New South Wales Police Force. I particularly want to recognise the 150 officers who are attached to the Miranda Local Area Command with Superintendent Greg Antonjuk, as well as Superintendent Dave Donohue from the Sutherland Local Area Command. Both the Sutherland Local Area Command and the Miranda Local Area Command look after our shire community.

On this very important day 150 years ago, 800 officers were combined into a single police force in New South Wales. It was probably one of the toughest states in which to be a police officer—certainly back then, 150 years ago. That job has remained tough and dangerous ever since.

I particularly want to pay tribute to Commissioner Andrew Scipione. In my time I have not come across a finer man than Commissioner Scipione. He is an extraordinarily talented, gifted but gracious individual who has done an outstanding job as the Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Force. It was one of his initiatives to call the New South Wales Police Force by that name. My father, in particular, was incredibly pleased when that decision was taken, because it is a force. We need a force in our communities to combat the insidious nature of crime that would seek to rob the property, lives and liberties of our citizens. So it is incredibly important that we recognise the contribution of those who have done so much in this area.

Commissioner Scipione has probably done more than any other commissioner to lift the level of integrity within the New South Wales Police Force—only exceeding the efforts of Commissioner Avery, many years ago. I pay tribute to Commissioner Scipione and I pay tribute to Minister Mike Gallacher, and the work that he is doing in that area, but most importantly I acknowledge the work of the good and faithful officers of the New South Wales Police Force. I also want to acknowledge their families. Being a police officer is tough, and it is tough on families. Police officers find it difficult to deal with the things they see every day, and it is almost impossible not to bring that back home. They do everything they can, I think, to shield their families from the things that they have to deal with every day. For that they pay a very high emotional price.

It is important that we acknowledge that they are not only protecting community members but also trying to protect their families, and their family life, from the impact of what they have to deal with on a daily basis. I know that that was something my father did on a daily basis. I remember particularly the day that my father, who was working for the CIB at the time as a fingerprint expert, had to attend the scene at the Luna Park fires. On that occasion there were a number of young boys who had perished in those fires. They were all from my local community and they were the same age as my brother and I. My father had to go to that scene and identify the bodies. They are the things police officers have to do. It is a tough job. We commend them here in this place.

But to the matter of the bill, I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011. The proposed amendments are far-reaching. They span a range of scenarios and issues faced by our law enforcement agencies, from forensics and DNA testing to illicit drugs to parole conditions and the proceeds of crime. This bill goes to the heart of policing and the way our nation manages the issues of crime and justice.

Fundamentally, this bill deals with the axis of crime, punishment and jurisprudence, and where these areas inevitably overlap this bill seeks to rationalise the intersecting roles, responsibilities and capabilities of law enforcement agencies across all levels and jurisdictions of governance.

I echo the disappointment of my colleague, the member for Stirling, that the report of the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has sat in this place for less than 24 hours before this debate has been brought into this parliament, but on this side of the chamber we get fairly used to the chaotic nature with which bills are often addressed.

The areas that this bill seeks to address are very serious and do require full, careful consideration by all parties concerned. That said, though, the coalition does support the measures that would enhance the capacity of our law enforcement agencies to do their job to the best of their ability. The one thing we can do in this place to support those who put themselves at risk is to ensure they have the laws and they have the support to back them up.

We support the aims of this bill to enhance and empower our law enforcement agencies as they seek to combat crime. The coalition will support the amendments to this bill, as per the recommendations of the House standing committee, but I understand we will be rejecting recommendation 8. I also understand from the comments by the member for Stirling that the additional amendments that the government has sought to move now would also be supported by the coalition.

In government, the coalition provided more than $65 million over four years to fund the National Community Care Crime Prevention Program. That was abolished by this government. They installed in its place the Safer Suburbs program, with a meagre $15 million over three years—less than a quarter of the funding. The AFP is also no stranger to funding cuts. Labor slashed more than $23 million from the operating budget of the Australian Federal Police in 2011-12 at a time when their services are in great need. Not only have we noticed that in the general community but we know of the demands placed on the Australian Federal Police as we have gone through the conduct of our detention inquiry over recent months. There are demands upon our Australian Federal Police and they need our support to do the job with which they have been tasked.

Customs has also suffered under this government's incompetence. In addition to 250 jobs being cut by Labor in the 2010-11 budget, another 90 staff have been shown the door. In the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook it was revealed that an estimated $35 million would be cut from Customs over the forward estimates.

These decisions serve to fundamentally overstretch and critically undermine the capacity of Australia's key frontline crime enforcement agencies. I acknowledge that there is a new Minister for Home Affairs in the chair. I know him well; he is a good friend of mine. I would hope that he will significantly better the performance of his predecessor in this role, and I think one of the things he will be judged upon will be his ability to ensure that these agencies get the resources they need to do the job, which was done so appallingly by his predecessor. But I look forward with hope to the opportunity that there will be a reward for the Australia Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Federal Police from the activities of the new minister.

It is on top of this record and against this concerning backdrop that these matters are before us today. The bill is about consolidated law—removing obstacles like jurisdictional difficulties and legal loopholes, and overcoming barriers to information sharing to enable our law enforcement officers to do their job to the best of their ability and ensure they have access to the intelligence, resources, cooperative tools and legal protections they need to perform their role. This bill builds upon discussions and constructive dialogue that has taken place for some years, adding further insult to injury when you consider that years of debate and constructive investigation of these matters has now come in such a rushed manner towards us today. But the bill does raise valid amendments and it is worth reflecting briefly on these. One of the key issues addressed in the bill is the collection and use of DNA forensic material. As science moves in leaps and bounds, there is a need—but, more than that, a responsibility—for us to keep up. As policing incorporates and relies more heavily on forensic testing—a world away from the forensic procedures and technologies that were available when my father was involved in these sorts of things many years ago—we need to keep up. It is imperative that the legal parameters within which our organisations operate are clearly defined, up to date, accessible and consolidated.

It is also critical, in short, that there is consistency across our various jurisdictions and that we are all on the same page. This bill will increase the transparency and reduce the complexity that surrounds procedures governing the collection, use and analysis of DNA material. It brings clarity. The amendments go towards reducing the inconsistencies that currently exist between the Crimes Act and the legislation in the states and territories. Furthermore, some of the amendments are concerned with reclassifying the methods used—for example, defining a blood sample as a prick-to-the-finger test. This bill also strives to bolster the capacity of the Australian Crime Commission to share information and intelligence with agencies across all tiers of law enforcement from Commonwealth, state and territory agencies to internal enforcement and intelligence bodies. This is critically important, because what we have learned over many years is that the better we can manage, capture, share and analyse data, the better chance we have of focusing our efforts on getting the crooks. That is something that our police are tasked with on our behalf every day. The opportunity to share this information and share its analysis and target our efforts will, I think, yield a significant dividend, not just in the area of policing but, more broadly, in the security responsibilities that we have as a national parliament and that the government has as an executive.

We are talking here about things that will put right these matters. The Australian Crime Commission has been forced to cut staff numbers from 688 to 556. That is almost 20 per cent. Another 100 officers seconded to the union from state and territory police forces have been returned home. Over the forward estimates for the ACC, Labor has cut more than eight per cent. On the issue of crime prevention, Labor's record also speaks volumes. These amendments would also permit the chief executive officer of the Crime Commission to share information with the private sector under certain circumstances, which is a worthy measure that is deemed necessary and appropriate. As with any organisation, transparency and accountability is a must, and that need could hardly be more pressing than in the area of crime prevention and law enforcement. This amendment will provide the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity with a contempt power, as well as enhancing the commission's ability to investigate corruption. The crux of this is to act as a deterrent for uncooperative witnesses and, where they arise, provide a quick and potent mechanism for the integrity commissioner to handle the situation and deal with it accordingly.

Furthermore, there are measures in this bill that aim to combat new and illicit substances that, sadly, have crept onto Australian streets with devastating consequences, substances like meow meow and Special K. As a father of two young girls—they are under five—I shudder to think what they will be exposed to by the time they enter their teenage years. Sadly, those threats, I am sure, will present themselves even before their teenage years. Staying on top of the quick movement of this is something that I will support strongly in this House. The amendment will clearly articulate the additional drug substances and quantities to be subject to the full range of Commonwealth serious drug offences. This bill should assist our Customs and Border Protection Service in intercepting and seizing illicit drugs detected at the Australian border, by overcoming an existing legal anomaly, allowing customs officers to seize all illicit drugs regardless of whether they are proscribed under customs regulations or the Criminal Code. Again, this goes to consolidation and consistencies. Our law enforcement agencies, officers in the Customs And Border Protection Service and the AFP perform a tremendous job under difficult circumstances, and it is important that we ensure that the law is there to support the work they do. This bill also makes amendments to Commonwealth parole. At present there is no ability to refuse parole to a federal offender who is serving a sentence of imprisonment of less than 10 years even if corrective services believe that the offender should not be granted parole. This bill's amendments will allow the release on parole of all federal offenders to become a discretionary decision consistent with the approach currently taken by the states and territories on the granting of parole. At present the maximum parole supervision for federal sentences other than life imprisonment is just three years.

This is a worthy bill. While it has been rushed into this place, it is an opportunity on this special day to recognise what is taking place even as we speak in New South Wales with the special march in the city of Sydney. Today is a day for police officers to stand tall and proud in New South Wales as they can all around the country. It is a day when their families can celebrate their service along with all the citizens of New South Wales and all of those who support their good works.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Fowler I take the opportunity to associate myself with the comments about police made by the honourable member for Cook. As late as last Friday, Minister Mike Gallacher and Commissioner Andrew Scipione visited the new, refurbished Burwood Police Station. I had the opportunity to speak to Commissioner Scipione, and on that occasion many laudatory statements were made about the fine work that he and Minister Mike Gallacher were doing. It was a welcome visit to my electorate. I thank the member for Cook.

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

I would like also to follow in the same vein on this 150th anniversary of the New South Wales Police. I thank the member for Cook, whom I know is also the son of a police officer, for his very fine remarks. One thing I do know from growing up, particularly growing up in the back blocks of Sydney, is that it was not necessarily all that popular to boast that you were a son of a police officer in New South Wales. I also know that one of the things that really did differentiate policing and still does now is the reasons that people choose to wear the uniform of a police officer. I had occasion to ask my dad that once, but I will come back to that a little bit later.

I wanted to say that, in addition to being a son of a police officer, I have also had the opportunity over many years to represent police in every state and territory of this country as their advocate in various tribunals, which has given me a very broad insight into policing generally. One thing that does unite police officers—I have asked many in the witness box, 'Why did you choose to become a police officer?'—is that, oddly enough, they were almost the exact words that my dad said to me: they joined the police to make a difference. I think that is really what is the case. It did not matter when I started acting as advocate for police—in whatever state I was in, the men and women who take the responsibility of protecting our nation and ensuring there is safety on our streets were all motivated by one thing: making a difference.

I really think it takes a special type of person with, quite, frankly, a special courage to put their hand up to do that. It is a profession in itself that is much demeaned. I am sure nobody likes being pulled over. No-one likes to be cautioned. But, without people being so selfless as to go take on an occupation such as policing with a view to protecting our community, there would be anarchy. Police officers, quite frankly, are a microcosm of our greater community. They are the ones who uphold the law. Perhaps in many instances they may not like everything they have to do, but they get up, work their shifts, go out day or night and experience dangers and see various things out there that, thankfully, none of us here will probably ever have to experience in our lifetimes. And yet they do that.

Regrettably and unfortunately, it does take a toll on police officers. Across the nation we only hold our male police officers for 12½ years, which is a lot different from when Scott's and my dad were in the force. For female police officers it is about nine years. It is an occupation that has a very high burnout rate, and that is something we need to stay focused on. We need to protect the people who are protecting our community.

Andrew Scipione is a very good friend of mine, and he is doing a fantastic job as New South Wales Police Commissioner. He has been a very unifying force—and not in the New South Wales Police Force. I oversee the law enforcement committee, which oversees the Australian Crime Commission, so I have regular contact with all the police commissioners. I have seen the spirit of unification Andrew brings to that august body and his role in promoting the idea that you cannot have criminal loopholes because that migrates crime around the country. He is a strong believer in consistency and also in the profession of policing itself. To Andrew and all his colleagues, all the men and women of the New South Wales Police Force, I wish you well on the 150th anniversary of the force. I think Andrew did the right thing by bringing back the word 'force'. My dad, in his retirement, reeled when it became the police 'service'. He reckoned that was akin to it being the Public Service. He said the police must be a force to be reckoned with. Those sorts of comments have been put forward around the kitchen table to most of us who have grown up in police families.

It would be remiss of me not to take a moment to mention Scott Webber and the New South Wales Police Association, with whom I have had a very strong association for many years. They represent everyone from probationary constables to the Commissioner of Police. They do so properly, they do so with respect and dignity, and they put police officers in New South Wales first and foremost. I congratulate them and their members on the sterling job the association does in New South Wales.

This bill amends a number of criminal justice legislation aspects which need to be revised. In particular, it is critical for making sure we have contemporary methods to combat crime. Crime is not static; it is ever-changing. As a consequence, if we are going to empower those to whom we want to give responsibility for enforcing our laws, we as legislators must be vigilant in ensuring that they have the appropriate tools and regulatory support to do their jobs. The majority of the amendments before us deal with collecting and using DNA in criminal investigations and enshrining the protection of persons whose DNA samples are being investigated. These amendments will ensure our criminal legislation is effectively on par with the 2010 DNA forensic procedures review of the Crimes Act by Peter Ford. The amendments in the bill will ensure a more transparent and simplified process of collecting and using DNA forensic material in criminal matters. They will also ensure the protection of the privacy of all those involved in an investigation, particularly in relation to children.

It is critical to nail this down and get it right. I was around when the former government some time back, to their credit, brought in a national DNA database. The whole idea was to have national consistency associated with that. That was a very good thing; it is a very good policing tool. But it was highly regrettable when, in the Peter Falconio case, a person was swabbed and their DNA was collected in Adelaide and then it was found that it was not admissible in a court in the Northern Territory. Regrettably, although everyone left Canberra with their hands over their hearts saying we will have a national DNA database supported by consistent state and territory based regulation, the amount of customisation that occurred simply meant that the investigative procedures applicable in one state were inadmissible in another territory. That could have jeopardised a very serious murder investigation. In terms of policing generally, I do not think there is anyone in law enforcement now that would take their position that they are state rightists. As I said at the outset, crime is an export commodity. Criminals do not look at the Constitution, nor do they read a geographical map when they want to plan or commission crime. They certainly look for windows of opportunity. That is why we should strive to have national consistency in our laws when they relate to crime and to ensure that we do not provide incentives and opportunities for those who seek to profit from the misery of others by the commissioning of crime itself.

In terms of the issues about forensic materials, I think that is good. It certainly takes leadership and it will make a significant difference. In respect to schedule 2, the amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act of 2002, the bill will ensure more efficient cooperation and sharing of information between the Australian Crime Commission; Commonwealth, state and territory agencies; and the private sector. The ACC CEO will be given the ability to share information with various industries exposed to serious and organised crime threats. This is very important in terms of the ACC and its extensive powers. It is a question of authority. It has very stringent standards put on it as to the security of its information and where it cannot be taken. However, to do its job effectively as our premier criminal intelligence agency, if you like, it must be in a position not only to notify and advise its partner groups, and each of the state and territory police agencies—Australian Taxation, Customs, et cetera—but also to actually advise organisations that are being infected or are highly suspected of being infected by serious and organised crime groups themselves. This will give the CEO of the Australian Crime Commission the protection and ability to do that.

I will be very brief in finishing up, because I know the minister is in here at the moment. In terms of extending the maximum term for the integrity commissioner, apart from being Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Law Enforcement, I also sit on the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and I see firsthand the good work that Philip Moss, as Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity, and his team do. Some time ago, the committee unanimously moved that there should be an extension—that the government should give consideration to extending the term from a five-year to a seven-year appointment. That has occurred as a consequence of that recommendation; I am very pleased the minister took that up. Philip Moss, having initiated the procedures of the commission itself, has done much to set the framework of law enforcement integrity. We strongly support his activities and are particularly pleased that the minister has sought to pick up that recommendation. As I have been given the wind-up, I will hand over to the minister.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief, because I know the importance of getting the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers and Offences) Bill 2011 through today. The coalition are glad to support these changes. One point worth mentioning about the bill is that it makes certain new drugs illegal. One particular drug is known as meow meow, which is actually mephedrone. This is a very dangerous drug which has resulted in over 100 deaths in the UK. Its current use is not illegal but this bill will make it illegal. It is very important that we have the legislative powers to act quickly so that any new drugs that come onto the system—our scene—that are very dangerous, like this new drug, can quickly be made illegal.

I would also like to congratulate our local superintendent of the Liverpool area, Ray King. He is doing a fantastic job cleaning up Liverpool. Ray was previously the superintendent who did the excellent work in Cabramatta using CCTV cameras. I would like to note that it was the coalition's commitment in 2010 to get three quarters of a million dollars to fund the CCTV cameras in the Hughes electorate and we hope that they can be put in soon. However, I would like to quickly express my disappointment that the government has been cutting back in many areas of our policing, particularly our customs service where we have seen reductions in the number of cargo screenings. This is very detrimental and makes Ray King's job on the streets of Liverpool all the more difficult.

It is great to have these bills to increase the powers of our police, but we cannot at the same time be cutting back other areas of expenditure and customs, which we have seen this government doing, and also in the Australia Federal Police. We support the bill and we hope it gets through quickly.

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

In my speech in reply, I want to thank the previous speakers, particularly the member for Fowler, who significantly cut short his speech as have a number of members of the opposition. We are trying to make sure that this bill, with the amendments that were recommended by the committee, is able to be passed through the chamber today. I will say nothing in my summing up speech other than that I welcome the comments. I thank the house committee for its recommendations. I will, after the bill has been read a third time, move the amendments. There are a number which have been agreed to as recommended by the committee. I would like to note that my representative in the other place will go through in a little more detail why one of those recommendations unfortunately is not able to be picked up. We have had consultations with the opposition and I understand that they are supportive of that.

Sitting suspended from 12 : 26 to 12 : 39

Bill read a second time.