Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 1
Introduction
Terms of reference
1.1
On 15 May 2008, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian
Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity initiated an inquiry into state-based
law enforcement integrity models pursuant to subsection 215(1)(d) of the Law
Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006:
To report to both Houses of the Parliament on any change that
the Committee thinks desirable:
(iii) to the Integrity Commissioner’s functions or powers; or
(iv) to the procedures followed by the Integrity Commissioner;
or
(v) to ACLEI’s structure
1.2
The terms of reference required the committee to examine the various
Australian state-based law enforcement integrity agencies in order to inform
possible changes to the governance structure and operational processes of the
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) to enhance its
current operation and support the potential extension of ACLEI oversight to
other Commonwealth agencies with a law enforcement function.
In particular the committee was required to examine and
report on:
-
the responsibilities and powers of the various state law
enforcement integrity agencies;
-
the organisational structures and internal governance
arrangements of the various state law enforcement integrity agencies;
-
the governance structures that underpin the state law
enforcement integrity agencies' relationships with external bodies including:
-
state ombudsmen
-
parliamentary oversight committees
-
intelligence-gathering
agencies
-
other
relevant agencies
-
the legal rights and obligations of the various state
law enforcement integrity agencies to investigate corruption issues involving
law enforcement officers formally or informally seconded to national law
enforcement agencies or participating in joint operations with national and/or
state law enforcement bodies;
-
existing state corruption prevention programs;
-
the internal anti-corruption processes of the state law
enforcement bodies and the protocols and processes in place for reporting
corruption matters to their respective integrity agency;
-
the adequacy and applicability of existing state law
enforcement integrity approaches to the structure and operations of ACLEI.
Background to ACLEI
1.3
ACLEI was established by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner
Act 2006 (LEIC Act). The LEIC Act commenced operation on 30 December 2006.
1.4
The Act established a new office of Integrity Commissioner, supported by
a statutory agency, ACLEI.
1.5
The main purpose of ACLEI is to 'enhance the integrity of Commonwealth
law enforcement agencies by providing independent and effective external
investigation of possible instances of corruption' in those agencies.[1]
1.6
ACLEI's role is 'to detect, investigate and prevent corruption in law
enforcement in Australian Government agencies that fall within its jurisdiction
– currently the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police'.[2]
ACLEI also has jurisdiction over the National Crime Authority (NCA), which was
the forerunner to the Australian Crime Commission (ACC). Other Commonwealth
agencies are able to be brought within ACLEI's jurisdiction by regulation.[3]
1.7
ACLEI's outcome and output as designated in the 2007-2008 Portfolio
Budget Statements are:
Outcome: Assurance that Australian
Government law enforcement agencies and their staff act with integrity.
Output: Detect, investigate and
prevent corruption in prescribed Commonwealth law enforcement agencies; assist
law enforcement agencies to maintain and improve the integrity of staff
members.[4]
1.8
ACLEI's appropriation for 2007-2008 was $2.013m. In the 2008-2009 Budget
ACLEI was allocated additional funding of $7.5 million over four years.[5]
In 2007-08 there were eight ongoing staff and six casual, temporary or seconded
staff.[6]
Australian Federal Police (AFP)
1.9
The AFP is the primary law enforcement agency of the Australian
Government. Its principal role is to enforce Commonwealth criminal law and
protect Australian interests from crime within Australia and overseas.[7]
As at 30 June 2008, the AFP employed 6598 staff, comprising 2855 Sworn Police
Officers, 1341 Protective Service Officers and 2402 unsworn staff.[8]
1.10
The AFP Professional Standards Operations Monitoring Centre develops and
monitors professional standards within the AFP including by overseeing and
investigating complaints about the conduct of officers and staff. Minor
complaints are handled by workplace managers and overseen by Professional
Standards, and more serious complaints are investigated by Professional
Standards. Complaints alleging corruption are notified by the AFP Commissioner
to ACLEI.[9]
1.11
The AFP underwent considerable changes to its internal integrity
arrangements in accordance with recommendations arising from a review of AFP
professional standards by Justice William Fisher AO QC in 2002. The Law
Enforcement (AFP Professional Standards and Related Measures)
Bill 2006 repealed the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981
and amended the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to update the AFP's
complaints and professional standards regime. In essence, the new system
established a managerial model for professional standards to replace what was a
legalistic and formal regime.
Australian Crime Commission (ACC)
1.12
The ACC is Australia's national criminal intelligence and investigation
agency. It works with other national, state and territory law enforcement
agencies to counter serious and organised crime. As at 30 June 2008, the ACC employed 585 staff.[10]
1.13
The ACC has an internal professional standards program that is focused
on aligning ACC practices and policies with its integrity goals. It also deals
with complaints of misconduct made against ACC staff. As ACC employment is
under the Public Service Act 1999, the Australian Public Service Code of
Conduct[11]
applies to ACC employees, including to staff formally seconded from other
agencies.
1.14
Complaints concerning seconded police officers are usually referred to
the officer's home force. Any corruption issues involving seconded officers are
notified to ACLEI, and the ACC will notify the home force of the referral to
ACLEI.[12]
ACLEI does not have jurisdiction over staff from state and territory agencies
participating in joint ACC operations or other ACC-Board approved task forces
who have not been seconded to the ACC.[13]
Conduct of the inquiry
1.15
The committee advertised the inquiry in The Australian
newspaper and on the committee's website. In addition, the committee wrote to a
number of organisations inviting submissions.
1.16
The committee received 23 submissions, 20 of which were published on the
committee's website. Three submissions were classified as confidential. A list
of submissions is contained at Appendix 1.
1.17
In addition, the committee held public hearings in Canberra, Melbourne, Brisbane,
Perth and Sydney. The witnesses who appeared before the committee are listed
in Appendix 2.
Structure of the report
1.18
The report comprises five chapters. This chapter provides background to
the inquiry.
1.19
Chapter 2 outlines existing law enforcement integrity arrangements in Australia.
This includes an overview of the external integrity models in place across the
states, and an overview of the internal integrity arrangements of the state
police services that provided evidence to the inquiry.
1.20
Chapter 3 focuses attention on the 'building block' approach adopted to
establish ACLEI and discusses various issues that relate to this approach and
to the building blocks required for an integrity agency to fulfil its functions
effectively.
1.21
Chapter 4 discusses other dominant themes or issues that emerged during
the course of the inquiry. It looks at various aspects of the state models and
broader research on anti-corruption, which provide helpful lessons and
opportunities for the development of ACLEI.
1.22
Chapter 5 outlines the committee's conclusions and recommendations for
change.
Acknowledgements
1.23
The committee wishes to express its appreciation to all parties that
contributed to the conduct of this inquiry, whether by making a written
submission, by attendance at a hearing or, as in many cases, by making both
written and oral submissions.
1.24
The committee is also grateful to the members of the Queensland
Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) who met privately with the
committee to discuss the parliamentary oversight role: Mr Paul Hoolihan MP
(Chair), Mrs Christine Smith MP and Mrs Liz Cunningham MP. Thanks are extended
to Mr Stephen Finnimore and Ms Renee Easten, PCMC secretariat, for their role
in organising this meeting.
1.25
The opportunity to inspect the NSW Police Integrity Commission's hearing
facilities during the course of the inquiry enabled the committee to gain a
greater appreciation of the significance of the hearing room in corruption
investigations and corruption prevention, and the resources required to set up
and maintain such a facility. Accordingly, the committee would like to thank Mr
John Pritchard, Commissioner of the Police Integrity Commission, and Mr Digby Morrison,
Mr Allan Kearney, Mr James Flood and Ms Gabrielle Wanner for taking the time
to brief the committee and demonstrate the audio-visual features of the hearing
room.
Note on references in this report
1.26
References to Committee Hansard are to the proof Hansard. Page numbers
may vary between the proof and the official Hansard transcript.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|