Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4993 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Jurisdictions such as Western Australia have looked at complementary legislation in more detail before voting on it, although they have made it a little more complicated by tying in a corruption commission. In fact, the Western Australia committee is still looking at this legislation. Federal law was subject to a committee discussion but not all the issues that were raised by that committee were included in the final bill. We are being asked to pass legislation to ensure that territory laws are policed in a certain way without the benefit of careful investigation to determine its implications.

Even though the federal parliament could not reach agreement on this model we must not abrogate our responsibility on this issue. We must know what we are doing and we must be happy with it. We must seek the views of and obtain input from local concerned groups. I note also that the ACT was not represented on the steering committee or at the national level when discussions on this bill were ensuing. At a public hearing on 17 October 2002 the parliamentary joint committee reported that it had been informed that discussions had taken place at officer level, in addition to consultation with a steering committee on the implementation process. The general manager of the criminal justice and security division of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department chaired that steering committee.

Other members of the steering committee included state police commissioners from South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the chair of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Two senior government officers from Victoria and New South Wales were on the steering committee, and another officer from Victoria was present as an observer. The commissioner of the AFP plays a dual role, as he works also for the ACT, but that representation on the committee cannot really be described as ACT representation in the development process.

The Commonwealth steering committee inquiry was also subject to time constraints. The committee acknowledged in its report that, due to the fact that its reporting date was 6 November 2002, it had invited contributions at very short notice. The Greens first preference would be for a committee of this Assembly to examine this bill. After talking to members, I understand that there is no support for such a proposal so I foreshadow that I will move a motion to adjourn debate on the bill after the in-principle stage so that members can seek further advice from the Law Society and other informed people. Members might also wish to consider what the Western Australian committee had to say about its proposed legislation and determine whether or not the provisions in that bill are adequate.

I would like to outline some of the issues that I believe ought to be considered. What is the membership of the board and how much of its work concerns police work versus strategic work? What is the definition of "organised crime"? Clause 7 states that incidental offences may be taken to be serious and organised crime:

If the head of an ACC operation/investigation suspects that an offence (the incidental offence ) that is not a serious and organised crime may be directly or indirectly connected with, or may be a part of, a course of activity involving the commission of a serious and organised crime (whether or not the head has identified the nature of that serious and organised crime), then, the incidental offence is, for so long only as the head so suspects, taken, for this Act, to be a serious and organised crime.

So the types of activities that can be made subject to these coercive powers can be broadened beyond the offence of organised crime. There is a possibility that the head of operations or investigations could be corrupt. When we give a body such strong powers of investigation we need to ensure that it does not misuse its powers. Does this bill achieve those aims? Has a case been

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .