Page 4753 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
what is going on. I shall give an example of what has gone on in the National Crime Authority. Since I last spoke, Mr John Phillips, the head of the National Crime Authority, has been appointed Chief Justice of the Victorian Supreme Court, and the NCA, to my knowledge, does not have a chairperson at this time.
I give an example of the sort of situation that a government will find itself funding. On 30 January 1990 the Hon. Chris Sumner, Attorney-General of South Australia, had a letter sent to him by the then chair of the National Crime Authority, Mr Peter Faris, of queen's counsel. Under that, following a request by the South Australian Attorney, internal documents of the authority relating to an Operation Noah were sent down. In explaining the documents, the then chairman of the authority said that the matter had been investigated by the previous chairman, Mr Justice Stewart, and the present chair of the authority had had a look at the work done under Mr Justice Stewart.
He indicated in the correspondence to the South Australian Attorney that the authority, as it was then constituted, rejected the proposed report on Operation Noah. It rejected it for a number of reasons, in particular because the proposed report dealt unfairly with a number of police officers; did not make any sufficient findings of fact; had conclusions and recommendations that often were not supported by the evidence; failed to accord natural justice to the persons it criticised; had a style of authorship that was offensive and sarcastic towards persons and lacked objectivity; and did not appear to apply the proper standard of proof. It went on and on.
I have commended in the past, privately, publicly and in this chamber, the South Australian Attorney, Mr Chris Sumner, for his attempts to ensure that the National Crime Authority is subject to proper parliamentary purview and certainly proper access by the Attorneys in whose jurisdiction it operates. I indicate to the Assembly that this authority has the power to enter premises and to authorise the installation of listening devices. It has the benefit of highly skilled technical people, and I will not go into detail. We do not have a listening devices Act in this Territory.
This authority can require information of the Commissioner of Taxation where it considers that the commissioner may have acquired particular information that is relevant to an investigation. It can require it by applying to a judge of the Federal Court. It has police powers by virtue of the special attachments it receives from the Australian Federal Police and police forces of the States and the Northern Territory. The National Crime Authority is invested with significant powers, and they are needed to combat organised criminal activity. I do not cavil at them, but I have been elected to this Assembly to ensure that the operations of any such investigative body in this Territory are properly under review.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .