Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 1 - Introduction
The Committee
1.1
The Parliamentary Joint Committee (PJC) on the
Australian Crime Commission (ACC) is established under section 53 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.
The duties of the Committee are set out in section 55:
- The
duties of the Committee are:
- to
monitor and to review the performance by the ACC of its functions;
- to
report to both Houses of the Parliament, with such comments as it thinks fit,
upon any matter appertaining to the ACC or connected with the performance of
its functions to which, in the opinion of the Committee, the attention of the
Parliament should be directed;
- to
examine each annual report on the ACC and report to the Parliament on any
matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such annual report;
- to
examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and
report to both Houses of the Parliament any change which the Committee thinks
desirable to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the ACC; and
- to
inquire into any question in connection with its duties which is referred to it
by either House of the Parliament, and to report to that House upon that
question.
- Nothing
in this Part authorises the Committee:
- to
undertake an intelligence operation or to investigate a matter relating to a
relevant criminal activity; or
- to
reconsider the findings of the ACC in relation to a particular ACC
operation/investigation.
- To
avoid doubt, the Committee may examine, and report to both houses of the Parliament
on, information given to it under section 59.
Terms of reference
1.2
On 20 July
2005, the Committee adopted the following terms of reference:
Pursuant to Section 61A, the Committee will review the operation
of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, with particular reference to:
- the effectiveness of the investigative,
management and accountability structures established under the Act, including:
- the
Australian Crime Commission;
- the
Chief Executive Officer;
- the
Examiners;
- the
Australian Crime Commission Board;
- the
Intergovernmental Committee; and
- the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian
Crime Commission
- whether the roles, powers and structure
granted to the Australian Crime Commission under the Act and associated
legislation remain appropriate and relevant to meeting the challenge of
organised crime in the 21st century.
- The need for
amendment of the Act.
- Any other related
matter.
1.3
The terms of reference include the PJC itself, since as
a creation of the ACC Act, it is logical that the review should encompass an
evaluation of the Committee's work. The Committee recognised the inevitable
difficulty of an objective self-assessment. For this reason, the Committee
determined to invite an independent person to examine the PJC's role and
performance, with the following terms of reference:
Pursuant to Section 61A of the ACC Act 2002, you are to inquire
into the role and functions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the
Australian Crime Commission, established under Part III of the Act.
In particular:
- the
appropriateness of the Committee's statutory role and functions; and
- the
effectiveness of the Committee in fulfilling its statutory charter,
particularly in relation to its key functions of:
- scrutinising
the ACC's activities and its use of its special investigatory powers; and
- contributing
to policy debate in relation to emerging trends and patterns in organised
criminal activity relevant to the ACC.
1.4
Professor James
Davis, Emeritus Professor of Law at the Australian
National University
was chosen with the unanimous agreement of the Committee, and in consultation
with the Minister for Justice. In drafting his report, Professor
Davis had the benefit of the Committee’s own
thoughts in relation to its role and performance, which form the section of
Chapter 5 titled ‘PJC on the ACC’. Professor
Davis’ report is at Appendix 3.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.5
The Committee advertised the inquiry in the Australian
newspaper on Wednesday 3 August 2005,
as well as writing to a number of interested organisations and individuals.
1.6
Public hearings were held in Brisbane
on 19 August, Sydney on 9
September, Melbourne
on 16 September and Canberra on 7,
11 and 13 October. One further hearing was held in Melbourne
on Friday 28 October, in order to provide a representative of the Victoria
Police with the opportunity to respond to
adverse comments made in earlier hearings.
1.7
The Committee wishes to record its appreciation to all
those who took the time to prepare submissions and appear before the Committee.
Many of the submissions were of high quality and great assistance.
1.8
The Committee
wishes to particularly thank the officers of the ACC for their
helpfulness and responsiveness to the Committee in providing information,
answering additional questions and in their readiness to give evidence on
several occasions.
Problems in gathering evidence
1.9
The Committee must also record its disappointment with
the lack of cooperation shown by a number of state governments and agencies.
These comments relate to two categories of agencies.
1.10
The first category is agencies represented on the ACC Board.
The Committee sought meetings with several commissioners of police, including
those of Queensland, NSW and Victoria.
The NSW Commissioner declined to appear or send a representative.
1.11
In Victoria,
Chief Commissioner Nixon also
declined the specific request to appear, although as noted, a senior
representative of Victoria Police
did appear at a special hearing in Melbourne,
albeit for the limited purpose of answering criticisms made of Victoria
Police by an earlier witness.
1.12
The Queensland Commissioner also declined, but did at
least send instead a senior detective. This officer’s evidence was valuable and
the Committee appreciates his involvement.
1.13
The common rationale in each case appears to be that
the officers in question had already made their views known by means of the
joint ACC and ACC Board submission, and that they had nothing further to add.
Implicit in their refusal is the fact that, as officers of their states, they
are not obliged to give evidence to a Federal Parliamentary Committee.
1.14
The Committee does not consider this to be acceptable.
While these officers are state government officials, as ACC Board
members they are also senior office holders of an agency created by Federal Act
of Parliament and as such, they are under a duty to assist the Committee in the
same manner that they doubtless (and appropriately) assist members of the
Intergovernmental Committee in their considerations.
1.15
Their view that they had nothing further they wished to
say to the Committee overlooks the fact that the Committee had matters that it
wished to discuss with them. In each case, the Committee had a particular
interest in meeting with the Commissioners in their capacity as ACC Board
members, to discuss both the national operation of the ACC and the particular
criminal and operational environment in their jurisdictions. Other members of
the ACC Board proved willing to assist the
Committee, including both its Chairman, Mr
Keelty, and the CEO of the Australian Customs
Service, Mr Woodward.
1.16
The second category comprises agencies with related
roles to that of the ACC, and includes the Queensland Crime and Misconduct
Commission, the NSW Police Integrity Commission, and the NSW Crime Commission, which
all declined to provide information or meet with the Committee. The Committee
recognises that these agencies are not subject to the Committee’s jurisdiction
and are not obliged to assist. However, the fact that they perform closely
related tasks in a similar environment suggests that they may be able to
provide valuable insights into investigating organised crime and corruption
from a perspective perhaps slightly different to that of the ACC.
1.17
It is regrettable that, in an inquiry into the
operations of a national law enforcement agency like the ACC, the Committee has
encountered such a lack of national perspective
or cooperation. The Committee sincerely hopes that there will be opportunities
in the future in which it can meet with these related agencies as well as the
parliamentary committees that in many cases oversee them.
Overview of the history of the ACC and background to this review
1.18
A series of Royal Commissions during the late 1970's
and early 1980's – notably the Moffit, Woodward,
Costigan, Stewart and Williams Royal Commissions – led to a
belief that a standing Royal Commission was needed to deal with the
investigation of serious organised crime. Many felt that police forces had
largely been ineffective against organised crime, and traditional methods of
detecting and investigating offences were ill-suited to the task of controlling
it.
1.19
In contrast with police inquiries, which are
essentially reactive and directed towards individuals and individual crimes,[1]
the principal attraction of a Royal Commission is the availability of coercive
powers, which allow an investigating body to take initiatives which are outside
the scope of legally acceptable criminal investigation, and which are not
available to police. Most importantly, these extraordinary powers are entrusted
to the judiciary, and not to executive agencies.
1.20
These considerations led to discussions in the
Australian Police Ministers' Council and the Standing Committee of
Attorneys-General with a view to the creation of a National Crime Commission.
Legislation for the National Crime Commission was passed by the Commonwealth
Parliament in December 1982, but due to opposition from various states and
police forces, was never proclaimed. The incoming Hawke government in 1983,
announced a review of the National Crime Commission, and a discussion paper was
released setting out various options, which, together with other material,
formed the basis for a national conference in July 1983. Out of these
proceedings came the National Crime
Authority Act 1984.[2]
1.21
In the eighteen years of its existence, a perception
emerged that there were problems with the fundamental structure of the NCA.
This led to a review of the NCA, conducted by former AFP Commissioner Mr Mick Palmer, and former Secretary of the Attorney General's Department, Mr Tony Blunn. This report has never been made public, but its findings,
together with the results of the April
2001 Summit on 'a safer Australia' formed the basis for the new Australian
Crime Commission Establishment Bill 2002. According to the then Attorney General,
Mr Daryl Williams:
If you take the analogy
of a car, with the NCA we had an 18 year old car. It may work as well as it
can, but it has limits. The government decided it was time to review the
adequacy of the NCA as Australia's premier law enforcement vehicle. It
decided Australia needed a state of the art organisation to
combat the state of the art amenities used by criminal organisations.[3]
1.22
The Committee's present review represents the continuation
in a regular series of reviews of the NCA by the Parliamentary Joint Committee
on the NCA, conducted in 1988, 1991 and 1998.
1.23
These reviews continue to assess, at a strategic level,
the continuing relevance, effectiveness and accountability of these
organised-crime fighting bodies and the wide powers they wield in the national
interest.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|