Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016

Bills Digest no. 17, 2016–17

PDF version [610KB]

Mary Anne Neilsen
Law and Bills Digest Section
6 October 2016

This Bills Digest updates an earlier version dated 10 November 2015.

Contents

Australian Institute of Criminology
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (formerly the Australian Crime Commission)
Merger of the AIC and ACIC

Committee consideration

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

Position of major interest groups

Financial implications

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

Key issues and provisions

Schedule 1—Australian Crime Commission Act 2002
Criminological research
Fees for commissioned criminological research
Disclosure of criminological research and related information
Schedule 2—Criminology Research Act 1971
Abolition of the AIC and the Criminology Research Advisory Council

Concluding comments

Date introduced: 14 September 2016
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Justice
Commencement: A single day to be fixed by Proclamation or 1 July 2017, whichever is the earlier.

Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian Parliament website.

When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation website.

All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at October 2016.

History of the Bill

A version of this Bill was introduced into the 44th Parliament on 15 October 2015.[1] That Bill had passed the House of Representatives and was before the Senate when Parliament was prorogued. The Bill lapsed on prorogation of Parliament. For the purposes of this Bills Digest that Bill is referred to as the 2015 Bill.

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016 (the Bill) is to amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002[2](ACC Act) and repeal the Criminology Research Act 1971[3](CR Act) in order to merge the functions of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) into the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) and to abolish the AIC as a statutory agency.

Background

Australian Institute of Criminology

The AIC was established in 1973 under the CR Act. As a Commonwealth statutory authority, the AIC is regulated under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.[4] Staff of the AIC are generally engaged under the Public Service Act 1999[5] but may also be employed or engaged by the AIC for a particular project.[6]

According to the 2013-14 Annual report:

[the AIC] has served as Australia’s national research and knowledge centre on crime and justice for more than 40 years, undertaking and promulgating new research, monitoring and analysing crime trends, and providing advice to inform legislative, policy and practice change.

The independent status of the AIC has meant its output is not only robust, but trusted by government, law enforcement and justice agencies across the nation and internationally. Much of the AIC’s work falls under the Commonwealth Government’s strategic research priorities, in particular, the priority themes of ‘living in a changing environment’, ‘promoting population health and wellbeing’ and ‘securing Australia’s place in a changing world’.[7]

The Director and Chief Executive of the AIC is Chris Dawson.

A Criminology Research Advisory Council, established under the CR Act in 2011 advises the Director on strategic research priorities, communications and on the Criminology Research Grants program. The Advisory Council consists of nine members who represent the Australian Government and all states and territories. This composition ensures that areas targeted for research funding reflect both national and state/territory priorities.[8]

The Criminology Research Grants (CRG) program, managed by the AIC, is funded by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The Director of the AIC approves a series of research grants each year, taking into account the recommendations of the Criminology Research Advisory Council. The program funds research that has relevance to jurisdictional policy in the areas of law, police, judiciary, corrections, mental health, social welfare, education and related fields.[9]

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (formerly the Australian Crime Commission)

The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) commenced operations on 1 July 2016 as a result of the merger of CrimTrac and the Australian Crime Commission (ACC).[10] This Bills Digest refers to both the ACIC and the ACC, depending on the context.

The ACC commenced operation on 1 January 2003. It had its origins in the April 2002 Council of Australian Government Leaders Summit, which agreed that a new national framework was needed to meet the challenges of multi-jurisdictional crime. It replaced and combined the strategic and operational intelligence and specialist investigative capabilities of the National Crime Authority, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments.[11]

According to the latest Annual Report, the aim of the ACC (or now ACIC) is to ‘reduce serious and organised crime threats of most harm to Australians and the national interest’.[12] To achieve this aim, the ACIC has a range of special coercive powers such as the capacity to compel attendance at examinations, production of documents and the answering of questions (similar to a Royal Commission). The ACC also has an intelligence-gathering capacity and a range of investigative powers common to law-enforcement agencies, such as the power to tap phones, use surveillance devices and participate in controlled operations. [13]

Like the AIC, the ACIC is regulated under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and staff of the ACC are engaged under the Public Service Act.[14]

Merger of the AIC and ACIC

The 2014 Commission of Audit had broached the subject of the possible merger of various agencies responsible for crime intelligence, and in particular suggested that Crimtrac should be merged in to the ACC ‘to better harness their collective resources’.[15] However, in relation to the AIC, the Audit Committee did not suggest the possibility of merging with the ACC, proposing instead that relocation to a university should be considered.[16]

Prior to the 2015 Budget there had been media speculation that the two bodies, the AIC and the ACC would merge.[17] While there was no Budget announcement to this effect, at Senate Estimates hearings shortly afterwards, the Attorney-General indicated that there were ongoing discussions between the two bodies about a possible merger, although no decision has been taken to proceed with the merger.[18]

A more definite sign of the impending merger occurred in July 2015, when the Minister for Justice announced the appointment of ACC CEO Chris Dawson as the newly appointed Interim Director of the AIC. Mr Keenan indicated that the Government was considering whether the AIC should be placed within the ACC, but at that date a final decision had not been made:

In the interim, the ACC and AIC will continue to exist and operate as separate entities, while working together on expanding existing relationships.[19]

Finally, on 25 September 2015, the Minister for Justice announced that the AIC would be placed within the ACC to ‘boost research capability at the nation’s criminal intelligence agency’.[20] The AIC is to be incorporated into the ACIC as an independent research branch known as the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre (ACJRC).

The Minister stressed that this merger is ‘not about cutting costs or personnel of either agency; it’s about creating a unified workforce incorporating staff of both agencies’:

Combining the expertise, capabilities and data and information holdings of the AIC and the ACC will significantly enhance support for law enforcement in counter terrorism efforts and in bolstering Australia’s response to serious and organised crime.

Our law enforcement and protection agencies are increasingly dependent on accurate research, information and intelligence to ensure that police on the ground, at our borders and in our intelligence agencies can do their job.

The more we strengthen our research capabilities, the better evidence base we have for our agencies to identify the patterns and associations that can help detect, disrupt and undermine those who seek to do our communities harm. [21]

The Bill provides the necessary legislative framework to achieve the merger.

Committee consideration

Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

The Bill had not been referred to any Committee at the time of writing this Bills Digest. However, the earlier version of the Bill (the 2015 Bill) was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report (the Senate Committee inquiry). Details of the inquiry are at the inquiry webpage.[22]

The Committee tabled its report on 26 November 2015 and the majority report recommended that the Bill be passed. The Committee was supportive of the objectives of the Bill and accepted the assurances of the Attorney‑General’s Department and the ACC that the independence and integrity of criminological research in Australia would be maintained under the ACJRC.[23] The Labor Party Senators on the Committee, while not dissenting from the Committee’s recommendation, had concerns and made further comments and recommendations about aspects of the Bill.[24] The Australian Greens, noting that the majority of submissions and evidence had raised concerns about the Bill recommended that the Bill be rejected by the Senate.[25] Further discussion of the Committee Inquiry report and the views of the submitters and witnesses is provided throughout the Bills Digest.

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

At the time of writing, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has not reported on the Bill, although that Committee did report on the 2015 Bill. In particular, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised a concern and sought the Minister's advice regarding a role for the Australian Information Commissioner. The Committee asked why the Information Commissioner, who usually investigates breaches of the Privacy Act 1988 and would do so in relation to the AIC, should not have jurisdiction under the ACC Act to investigate potential breaches of the new information disclosure regime that will apply to the ACC in relation to criminological research.[26] The Minister in response reiterated the view put in the Explanatory Memorandum:

Given the sensitive nature of the ACC's operations, the Government's position is that the Information Commissioner (and his office) is not the most appropriate body to deal with complaints against the ACC. A separate system of oversight and accountability exists specifically to ensure that the ACC exercises its powers appropriately while maintaining the appropriate balance between secrecy and accountability. Any privacy issues relating to the ACC should be monitored through this separate system. [27]

While noting the Minister’s response, the Committee remained of the view that it would be appropriate for the Information Commissioner to be given jurisdiction to investigate breaches of the proposed disclosure regime.[28]

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

The ALP Senators, while not dissenting from the Senate Committee recommendation that the Bill be passed, did express some ongoing concerns with the Bill. In their additional comments attached to the report, Senators Jacinta Collins and Catryna Bilyk said that they believe that the AIC’s functions are best undertaken by an independent agency that can guarantee the independence of the work undertaken. They state:

Labor believes that any positives that are being secured through the merger of the AIC and the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), such as access to classified data, can be secured through legislation and/or inter-agency agreements and does not require a full merger. The continued integrity and independence of criminological research in Australia is vital for both the quality of research but also the public trust in crime statistics. It is not in the public or national interest for such statistics to ever be perceived to be anything less than completely accurate and compiled by independent and skilled professionals.[29]

The ALP Senators recommended that the Government further consider the concerns raised by stakeholders during the public hearing and in submissions received by the Committee regarding maintaining the integrity and independence of the research currently undertaken by the AIC.

They further suggested:

If it were to proceed with the merger, amendments to the Minister's second reading speech and the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill would help to address these concerns by committing the verbal assurances given by the Government regarding these matters to writing.

Further, the Government should consider establishing a statutory advisory body, similar to the existing AIC Council, to advise the ACC Board on setting the criminological research agenda and priorities and allocation of grants.[30]

As noted below, the Explanatory Memorandum and to a lesser degree the Minister’s Second Reading Speech have in part been amended and would now appear to address some of these concerns.

The Australian Greens were from the outset publicly opposed to the 2015 Bill, arguing that the takeover of the AIC by the ACC is short-sighted and risks increased crime rates in the long term. Australian Greens legal affairs spokesperson Senator Nick McKim stated:

The AIC plays an important role in understanding what causes crime, and developing policy to reduce crime levels. But it is not a law enforcement agency, and losing the AIC risks Australia missing out on world class crime and justice research. It is clear that the takeover will result in the functions of the AIC being lost or subsumed. This is a short sighted ‘savings’ measure that will ultimately cost Australia in the long run through increased crime rates. [31]

Similar concerns were discussed at Estimates Committee hearings in May 2015 by Australian Greens Senator Penny Wright who raised questions regarding the difficulties of managing the merger of two agencies with very different functions and very different organisational cultures—one being a small ‘open’ organisation, the other, a larger, highly secretive one.

Senator Wright also saw a potential conflict of interest between for example the functions and priorities of the AIC, which may include studies that query the effectiveness of existing legal or administrative crime frameworks, potentially including the work that the ACC is doing.[32]

In their dissenting report to the Senate Committee inquiry into the 2015 Bill, the Australian Greens concluded that should that Bill pass there is a significant risk that broad ranging criminological research that focusses on understanding the causes of crime, and recommending crime prevention strategies, will take second place to the law enforcement needs of the ACC.[33]

To date, the views of other cross bench members of Parliament are not known.

Position of major interest groups

The majority of submissions received and evidence heard by the Senate Committee inquiry raised concerns about the Bill and the proposed merger of the AIC and the ACC. Stakeholders argued that merging the research function of the AIC with the law enforcement function of the ACC would compromise the perception of the independence of the AIC and possibly result in a loss of integrity and independence of criminological research in Australia

Professor Janet Ransley, Acting Director of the Griffith Criminology Institute (GCI) in evidence stated:

I think once you put this research function in a law enforcement agency there is a capacity for it to be perceived as co-opted by law enforcement. It will lose that aura of independence. That would be a great shame for Australia. Whether that will automatically happen or whether protections can be built in depends, I think, on the strength of the legislation and the strength of leadership in the research function. [34]

The President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminologists (ANZSOC) Professor Rick Sarre, stated in evidence to the Committee that ‘there is no doubt at all that the membership of our organisation would be with the maintenance of the status quo. I am very happy to say that’.[35]

Submitters and witnesses also raised questions about the potential problems of setting the research agenda and priorities for the ACJRC. Professor Sarre recommended that in order to ameliorate the risk of research by the ACJRC becoming too focussed on policing and law enforcement, ‘a broadly based advisory council’ should be consulted when setting the research agenda and priorities for the ACJRC. That council in his view should include not just people appointed to the ACC but also for example a nomination from the ANZSOC or from academia.[36] Professor Sarre also argued that it should be enshrined in the Bill that such an advisory body is to be consulted.[37]

In response to this discussion, the ACC CEO, and the Attorney-General’s Department said that a Research Advisory Committee would be established. Its membership would include the existing members of the Criminology Research Advisory Council plus two representatives from the ACC, two law enforcement representatives (to be selected by the ACC Board) and a representative from the ANZSOC. They further confirmed that the ACC Board would take advice from this non-legislated Research Advisory Committee. Both the ACC and the Attorney‑General’s Department disagreed with the proposal that this Advisory Committee be enshrined in legislation, arguing this was undesirable because advice to the ACJRC about its research agenda must be ‘both contemporary and relevant to the existing environment’ and that ‘putting something in legislation would actually hamper the flexibility of the operational arrangements’.[38]

Financial implications

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the merger will be cost neutral with small savings expected over the forward estimates.[39]

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[40]

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

To date this Committee has not reported on the Bill. The Committee did consider the 2015 Bill and made no comment.[41]

Key issues and provisions

Schedule 1—Australian Crime Commission Act 2002

Criminological research

Item 1 inserts a new definition of ‘criminological research’ into subsection 4(1) of the ACC Act.[42] ‘Criminological research’ is defined to mean research in connection with the causes, consequences, correction and prevention of criminal behaviour and any related matter. This definition copies to a great extent the existing definition in the CR Act.[43]

Section 7A of the ACC Act sets out the ACC’s existing statutory functions. Item 3 inserts new paragraph 7A(fb) to provide the ACC with an additional power to exercise the following functions currently performed by the AIC:

conduct criminological research
communicate the results of criminological research
perform other activities related to the conduct of criminological research (such as holding seminars or compiling crime-related statistics) and
administer programs for awarding grants for criminological research and activities related to the research, and assist the recipients of grants in that research or those activities.

The Explanatory Memorandum explains how it is intended these functions will operate within the objectives of the ACIC and it is of note that this explanation has been considerably expanded from the Explanatory Memorandum for the 2015 Bill:

Under the CR Act, the AIC is limited to the objectives of promoting justice and reducing crime in performing these functions. The ACIC’s criminological research and related activities may continue to promote these objectives, but will not be limited to these objectives.

While some of the criminological research may become aligned with law enforcement’s high level priorities, the remit of the ACIC’s criminological function will continue to be widely defined as crime and justice issues of national importance, extending beyond purely law enforcement.

This Act does not need to confer a new function on the ACIC Board to mirror the ACIC’s new functions. Under paragraph 7C(1)(b) of the ACC Act, the ACIC Board already has the function of providing strategic direction to the ACIC and determining the ACIC’s priorities. Following the broadening of the ACIC’s functions as set out in proposed paragraph 7A(fb), the Board may provide strategic direction to the ACIC in relation to these new functions or determine the ACIC’s criminological research priorities under the broad power in paragraph 7C(1)(b).

In doing so, the ACIC Board will take advice from a non-legislated Research Advisory Committee about the ACIC’s strategic research priorities and Criminology Research Grants program.

The Committee will consist of existing Criminology Research Advisory Council members (being state and territory justice agencies and the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department), two law enforcement representatives, two members from the ACIC and a representative from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology (ANZSOC). Including an ANZSOC representative ensures that there will be a specialised and independent criminology research voice on the Committee, which does not currently exist on the Advisory Council. Having a non-legislated body ensures there is the flexibility to add other members if subject matter expertise would assist on particular subjects.[44] [italics added for emphasis indicate new paragraphs added to the Explanatory Memorandum to the 2016 Bill.]

This long quote is significant for the fact that paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 were not part of the Explanatory Memorandum for the 2015 Bill. While not acknowledged as such, these additions would appear to be intended to address some of the concerns raised in the Senate Committee inquiry into the 2015 Bill.

Further discussion on the role of this non-legislated Research Advisory Committee can be found below.[45]

Fees for commissioned criminological research

Item 4 inserts new section 15B into the ACC Act to enable the ACIC to charge fees for commissioned criminological research. This is to allow states, territories, universities and other interested organisations to continue to commission specific work from the merged agency as they currently do from the AIC.[46] The fee would be paid into the Criminology Research Special Account (proposed paragraphs 59G(b) and (c)). This Account currently exists under the CR Act and its continued existence would be facilitated by proposed sections 59F, 59G and 59H.[47]

Disclosure of criminological research and related information

Under the ACC Act information disclosure rules are set out in sections 59AA and 59AB. These are strict information sharing provisions that apply to ACC information, whereas research conducted by the AIC often includes information of a more public nature and is currently disseminated more widely. Item 5 inserts new section 59AE, which will add an additional information disclosure regime into the ACC Act that will apply specifically to the ACIC’s new criminological research and related information.

Under new subsection 59AE(1), the ACIC CEO will be able to disclose or publish criminological research and information related to that research to any person, if disclosing or publishing that research or information would not be contrary to subsection 25A(9) of the ACC Act or any other law of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory.[48]

New subsection 59AE(2) will provide additional requirements where the ACIC’s criminological research or related information contains ‘personal information’, as defined by the Privacy Act 1988.[49]

Under new subsection 59AE(2), the ACIC CEO will be prohibited from disclosing personal information that was collected for the purpose of criminological research for another purpose unless:

the individual has consented to the use or disclosure
the individual would reasonably expect the ACIC would use or disclose the information for the other purpose and that other purpose is:
- if the information is sensitive information within the meaning of the Privacy Act—directly related to the purpose for which the information was collected or
- if the information is not sensitive information—related to the purpose for which the information was collected or
a permitted general situation within the meaning of the Privacy Act exists in relation to the use or disclosure of the information by the ACIC.

These requirements are modelled on Australian Privacy Principle 6 in the Privacy Act. As the Explanatory Memorandum notes, it is necessary to replicate these disclosure principles in the Bill, as the ACC is exempt from the scope of the Privacy Act.[50] Including these additional requirements in the new disclosure regime will ensure that personal information collected by the ACIC for research purposes remain subject to the same disclosure protections that currently apply to the AIC.[51] The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee commented on proposed section 59AE and queried its possible impact on personal rights and liberties relating to privacy. However, given the Explanatory Memorandum’s justification for this provision, the Committee chose to leave this matter for consideration of the Senate as a whole.[52]

Significantly, while the Information Commissioner usually investigates breaches of the Privacy Act and currently would do so in relation to the AIC, he or she will not have jurisdiction under the ACC Act to investigate potential breaches of the new information disclosure regime. The Explanatory Memorandum states that instead, the ACC is subject to oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Integrity Commissioner and Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and therefore:

One or all of these bodies may be able to examine potential breaches of the new regime, depending on the nature of the complaint.[53]

As noted above, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee also raised questions about the removal of the disclosure regime for criminological research from the Information Commissioner’s jurisdiction.

Schedule 2—Criminology Research Act 1971

Abolition of the AIC and the Criminology Research Advisory Council

Item 1 of Schedule 2 repeals the Criminology Research Act 1971. The effect will be to abolish the AIC as a statutory agency and remove the requirement for there to be a Director of the AIC.

The removal of the position of Director is significant. The Director has generally been an academic with a background in criminology or sociology who steers the direction of the AIC’s research with the help of the Advisory Council. Under the merger, the CEO or the ACIC Board will undertake this role, although neither the CEO nor the Board are criminologists.[54]

In addition and of some significance, the Advisory Council will no longer be a statutory body. The Advisory Council was established in 2011 and under the CR Act has responsibilities to advise the AIC Director on a number of strategic issues, including the AIC’s research priorities.[55] The Bill effectively abolishes this position, although the Explanatory Memorandum states that under the merged agency structure, a Research Advisory Committee will continue as a non-legislated body providing advice to the ACIC CEO and ACIC Board.[56] The role and priorities of the ACIC Board would be quite different from that of the current Advisory Council—the Board being composed in the main by police commissioners and the Director-General of ASIO[57], the Advisory Council currently being composed of representatives of federal, state and territory governments. As noted above, the role and membership of the new Advisory Committee has been further clarified in the new Explanatory Memorandum, which states that ‘the ACIC Board will take[58] advice from a non-legislated Research Advisory Committee about the ACIC’s strategic research priorities and Criminology Research Grants program’.[59]

The Research Advisory Committee will consist of existing Criminology Research Advisory Council members (being state and territory justice agencies and the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department), two law enforcement representatives, two members from the ACIC and a representative from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology (ANZSOC). According to the Explanatory Memorandum, ‘including an ANZSOC representative ensures that there will be a specialised and independent criminology research voice on the Committee, which does not currently exist on the Advisory Council’.[60]

Concluding comments

The Government has stated that the merger of the AIC and ACIC is not a cost saving exercise but an effort to combine the expertise and capabilities of both agencies, significantly enhancing ‘support for law enforcement in counter terrorism efforts and in bolstering Australia’s response to serious and organised crime’.[61]

The concluding comments in the Bills Digest on the 2015 Bill, in noting concerns with the Bill, suggested that Parliament might consider whether the Bill ensures that the priorities of the AIC will not be lost or subsumed in the merger; or whether under the merger a potential for a conflict of interest could arise, such as when the AIC is conducting research that requires critiquing the ACC priorities and operations. The Digest further observed:

The Bill does provide the ACC with capacity to undertake criminological research, as currently performed by the AIC; there will be a separate disclosure regime to ensure secrecy provisions necessary for intelligence work do not impact on the open and transparent environment necessary for research; and the ACC will continue to commission research from outside bodies as the AIC currently does. In addition, in light of the Minister’s statement that the merger is not a cost or personnel cutting exercise, the transfer of staff should be relatively seamless as both AIC and ACC staff are employed under the Public Service Act.

On the other hand, the merger does mean the loss of an independent criminology research organisation in Australia that, importantly, has a national focus. There is potential for the merger to impact on the AIC’s current research role.

While the Bill does provide for a Criminology Research Special Account to fund criminology related matters, the criminology research function will be just one of many priorities that the ACC Board will need to consider. In this setting, the existing Advisory Council would arguably have an important role in advising on or at least monitoring whether the AIC current research priorities (such as indigenous justice, crime prevention programs, alcohol and violence and family violence) are being lost or subsumed by higher prioritised ACC roles such as combatting counter-terrorism. Given the potential for a lessening or detraction of the criminology research function, it is therefore significant that the Advisory Council will have a reduced status – moving from being a statutory authority with legislated advisory responsibilities to a purely non-legislated body which may or may not advise the ACC Board.[62]

Subsequent to publication of that Bills Digest, a Senate Committee inquiry into the 2015 Bill heard evidence from stakeholders questioning the merger and expressing concerns about the possible loss of integrity and independence of criminological research in Australia and the risk that the new ACJRC’s research agenda and priorities would become too focussed on policing and law enforcement.

While the 2016 Bill essentially replicates the previous 2015 Bill, the new Explanatory Memorandum and to a lesser degree the Minister’s second reading speech have been altered in quite significant respects. These changes would suggest that the Government has gone some way to address the concerns of stakeholders. For example the Explanatory Memorandum now confirms that the remit of the work of the ACIC’s criminological function will continue to be widely defined as crime and justice issues of national importance, extending beyond purely law enforcement. In addition, the Research Advisory Committee’s role and profile while not enshrined in the Bill is to be strengthened; the ACIC Board is to consult the Research Advisory Committee; the Committee’s membership is to include a member of ANZSOC; and the head of the ACJRC is to be a criminologist.

It is of note that none of these changes have a legislative basis and the Bill has not been re-drafted in any way to strengthen the position of the ACJRC and the Research Advisory Committee. Whether the changed emphasis and the clarifications added to the Explanatory Memorandum will mitigate some of the concerns expressed by stakeholders and opposition parties during the 2015 Senate Committee inquiry remains to be seen.

[1]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

[2]. Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.

[3]. Criminology Research Act 1971.

[4]. Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

[5]. Public Service Act 1999.

[6]. CR Act, section 23.

[7]. Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), Annual report 2013–14, AIC, Canberra, October 2014, p. 6.

[8]. ‘The Criminology Research Advisory Council’, Criminology Research Grants website, last updated 19 April 2016.

[9]. AIC, Annual report 2013–14, op. cit., p. 6.

[10]. For background on this merger see: C Barker, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015 and Australian Crime Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 73, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2016.

[11]. Australian Crime Commission (ACC), Annual report 2014–15, ‘Chapter 1: Agency overview’, ACC, Canberra, October 2015, p. 9.

[12]. Ibid.

[13]. S Harris Rimmer and B Jaggers, Australian Crime Commission Amendment Bill 2007, Bills digest, 54, 2007–08, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2007, p. 3.

[14]. ACC Act, section 47.

[15]. National Commission of Audit, Towards responsible government: the report of the National Commission of Audit, Phase 1, National Commission of Audit, Canberra, February 2014, p. 208.

[16]. Ibid.

[17]. A Greene, ‘Budget 2015: Crime Commission tipped to merge with Institute of Criminology in budget shake-up’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News, (online edition), 8 May 2015.

[18]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, 27 May 2015, p. 83.

[19]. M Keenan (Minister for Justice) Interim director for the Australian Institute of Criminology, media release, 13 July 2015.

[20]. M Keenan (Minister for Justice), New Crime and Justice Research Centre, media release, 25 September 2015.

[21]. Ibid.

[22]. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry into the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 26 November 2015.

[23]. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016, The Senate, Canberra, November 2015, p. 13.

[24]. Ibid., pp 15-16.

[25]. Australian Greens, Dissenting report, Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016, The Senate, Canberra, November 2015, p. 17.

[26]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee), Alert digest, 12, 2015, The Senate, 25 March 2015, p. 2.

[27]. Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Report, 14, 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 2 December 2015, p. 764.

[28]. Ibid.

[29]. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 15.

[30]. Ibid., pp. 15–16.

[31]. N McKim (Australian Greens Senator), Getting rid of Australian Institute of Criminology counter-productive, media release, 5 November 2015.

[32]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, op. cit., p. 84.

[33]. Australian Greens, Dissenting report, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 18.

[34]. Quoted in: Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015, op. cit., p. 8.

[35]. Ibid., p. 17.

[36]. Ibid., p. 8

[37]. Ibid., p. 9.

[38]. Ibid., pp. 9–10.

[39]. Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016, (referred to as Explanatory Memorandum 2016), p. 2.

[40]. The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 3–4 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.

[41]. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2015 index of bills considered by the committee, The Senate, Canberra, 2015.

[42]. Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.

[43]. Criminology Research Act 1971.

[44]. Explanatory Memorandum 2016, op. cit., pp. 6–7.

[45]. See pp. 10–11 of this Bills digest.

[46]. M Keenan, ‘Second reading speech: Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 14 September 2016, p. 26.

[47]. Item 6, Schedule 1.

[48]. Subsection 25A(9) of the ACC Act deals with confidentiality directions in relation to examinations for the purposes of ACC operations/investigations.

[49]. Privacy Act 1988.

[50]. Explanatory Memorandum 2016, op. cit., p. 4. The ACC being an ‘enforcement body’ is exempt from some of the rules regarding disclosure of personal information (for example clause 3.4, Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act).

[51]. Ibid.

[52]. Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert digest, 12, 2015, op. cit., p. 2.

[53]. Explanatory Memorandum 2016, op. cit., p. 9.

[54]. Although the Minister’s second reading speech now states that the head of the ACJRC will be a criminologist. See: M Keenan, ‘Second reading speech: Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016’, op. cit., p. 26. The previous second reading speech used the term ‘research specialist’. See: K O’Dwyer, ‘Second reading speech: Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015’, House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 15 October 2015, pp. 11312–13.

[55]. Criminology Research Grants website, op. cit.; CR Act, section 33.

[56]. Explanatory Memorandum 2016, op. cit., p. 7.

[57]. ACC Act, section 7B.

[58]. The previous Explanatory Memorandum used the words ‘may take advice’. See: Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015, p. 2.

[59]. Explanatory Memorandum 2016, op. cit., p. 7.

[60]. Ibid.

[61]. Keenan, New Crime and Justice Research Centre, op. cit.

[62]. M Neilsen, Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 44, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.