Chapter 2
Key issues
2.1
During the course of the inquiry, a number of issues were raised. These included:
-
the integrity and independence of criminological research in Australia;
-
setting the criminological research agenda and priorities;
-
the allocation of grants; and
-
public access to data and library resources;
2.2
These are discussed in this chapter.
Integrity and independence
2.3
The continued integrity and independence of criminological research in
Australia was the source of concern during the inquiry.
2.4
Professor Janet Ransley, Acting Director of the Griffith
Criminology Institute (GCI), discussed criminology research in comparable
overseas jurisdictions, stating:
The leadership role in collecting, publicising and making use
of national data has been significant. Other countries internationally have
agencies that are responsible for that. If you look at the US, it has the
National Institute of Justice; the UK has the Home Office Science unit, which
has a section dealing with crime and justice research. Neither of these
agencies are situated within law enforcement bodies; they are situated
independently or within a government department, although they have some
independence in the way their research is structured and directed. Independence
is something that needs to be considered, going forward with this merger.[1]
2.5
The Australian Crime Prevention Council (ACPC) raised the AIC's
reputation and the value of its work:
The AIC's research and its impact on practice, legislation
and policy has been of immense value in setting budgets and forming policy in
the law and order field. It has been quoted in many academic and practitioner
publications and is of great assistance to others working in the area. It has
been a well respected and highly regarded professional source of criminological
data which has the same value as does medical research in the formulation of
the health budget.
...
The AIC is highly respected in all of these jurisdictions and
the diminution of its research, publications, overseas assistance and
conference organizing functions would have an adverse effect on Australia's
criminal justice influence and role in the region. It is clear from information
provided by our international colleagues that the AIC has been highly respected
and valued in the Asia Pacific region in particular as a source of sound
research information and advice.[2]
2.6
With regard to the establishment of the Australian Crime and Justice
Research Centre (ACJRC), Professor Ransley argued:
If there is not only the actuality of independence, but also
the perception of independence, I think there could be a problem with
stakeholders who have traditionally worked very closely with the AIC. I think,
internationally, the AIC is highly regarded. Its research certainly punches
above its weight in terms of its impact on international debates. You really
only have to look at the guns debates in the US. A lot of the data that is
provided there emanates from the AIC and from research that it has funded.
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.[3]
2.7
The Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology (ANZSOC) was
similarly keen to ensure that the integrity and independence of the AIC's work,
under the ACJRC, was maintained via mechanisms such as public scrutiny and peer
review.[4]
2.8
In response to concerns about the integrity and independence of
criminology research in Australia under the ACJRC, Mr Chris Dawson,
Interim Director of the AIC, explained that:
I confirm that the Australian Crime and Justice Research
Centre will continue to do its existing role. Thematically, there are three
matters that I envisage and plan and certainly have had discussions with [Dr Rick
Brown] , his colleagues and the Criminology Research Advisory Council as it is
presently constituted. I can confirm that the intention is that it continue the
statistical monitoring on a range of crime and justice issues, just as it does
now, and also continue a fee for service. We are very well advanced on that
this current year, since the machinery of government announcement...On a wide
range of justice issues I would also see it maintain independence by ensuring
that the same quality standards are adhered to. Presently, the Australian Crime
Commission does not have an ethics committee, for instance, but I would see
that it is critically important that we maintain an ethical oversight in terms
of the research projects and that we continue the peer review type process as
it is presently conducted.[5]
2.9
The ACC emphasised the synergies between the AIC and ACC's work, and the
benefits which could be derived from the merger:
Already, in that very short period of time we have worked out
that the ACC actually does some work that looks very similar, albeit with a
very different dataset that the AIC does in relation to [drug use monitoring in
Australia] and homicide monitoring. There has been an immediate identification
of some synergies where we can put some teams together and put some data and
capability together, out of which will come good things in terms of much
greater understanding of crime and justice problems. Personally, I do not think
that you will get that whilst the agencies remain as separate entities.[6]
2.10
The Attorney-General's Department also assured the committee that:
...the merged agency...will continue to provide independent
research with continued access to the existing datasets, it will provide open
access to its research, and it will operate without funding restrictions. I
might say something very briefly about each of those. Firstly, as you have
heard, the proposal is that the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre be
set up as a branch of the ACC, headed by a senior criminology researcher and
overseen by an ethics committee. It will continue to have the same arrangements
with respect to research being overseen by robust ethical and peer-reviewed
processes.[7]
Setting the research agenda and priorities
2.11
Related to the integrity and independence of criminological research in
Australia, submitters and witnesses raised questions about setting the research
agenda and priorities for the ACJRC.
2.12
For example, ANZSOC explained the importance of the ACJRC conducting
research with a broader focus than just law enforcement and intelligence, given
the causes of crime are wide-ranging. In this context, Professor Sarre was
concerned by a comment in the Minister's second reading speech that the ACC
Board would be responsible for determining the ACJRC's high level research
priorities:
What this appears to be saying in that second reading speech
is that it is going to become even more focused: "You will do this work in
relation to crime and intelligence with secure and classified information, and
that's what our research will be." If that is what it is going to be then
my members would have enormous difficulty with that because it would cut out
the sorts of broad-ranging things. It is the sort of thing that the Australian
Crime Prevention Council would say as well. If you are looking at crime
prevention and bringing safety and security to our communities, anti-terrorism
is one arm, and the sort of intelligence gathering that the ACC has done so
well for so many years is another arm. But, if you are talking about community
development and you are talking about education, health, housing, welfare—all
those sorts of things—and the things that the sociologists and psychologists
are telling us are the grave risks to our community development, an
intelligence-gathering body is not likely to engage in that sort of behaviour.
It would cut off the sorts of things that have been so beneficial to us, to
universities, to practitioners and to academics generally not only in Australia
but around the world.
...
Our real concern here is that the Australian Crime Commission
would tend to see crime as the sort of thing that you combat by having good
policing, good intelligence and the sort of weaponry...you would have to fight
crime. We know that is a very, very small aspect of crime and that the vast
majority of crime is caused by factors well and truly outside the control of
policing generally. It is caused by lack of education. It is caused by social
deprivation. It is caused by psychological illness. It is caused by poverty. It
is caused by all the sorts of things that police simply cannot solve...[8]
2.13
The ACPC echoed the concern about retaining a broad criminological research
remit and noted that the AIC's work has focused on little studied public policy
areas.[9]
2.14
To ameliorate the risk of research by the ACJRC becoming too focussed on
policing and law enforcement, Professor Sarre recommended that 'a broadly based
advisory council' should be consulted when setting the research agenda and priorities
for the ACJRC:
I think that it would probably be advisable...to have something
of an advisory body of not just people who are appointed to the ACC but also
people from whom advice can be gleaned. I am suggesting that I would be very
happy to have someone who would have been nominated by our organisation. We are
not about to go away; we have been around 50 years. Something that would
require someone on an advisory committee—a nomination of ANZSOC would be one
way. An advisory committee which was more broadly based from the public
service, not just those people in the ACC but academic advisers generally. I am
not suggesting that, for example, there are no criminologists in the Australian
Crime Commission now. There may be; criminology is a very broad church. I would
like to think there is synergy amongst those people who have been doing, for
example, research into cybercrime. Without looking at who they are I imaging
that there are people there who are criminologically, sociologically legally or
psychologically trained. I would like to think that they would have some role
to play in advising the research arm of the ACC for the foreseeable future.[10]
2.15
The GCI was also concerned about how the ACJRC's research agenda and
priorities would be determined. Professor Ransley argued:
The ACC board, as it is currently constituted—by my
understanding—comprises largely law enforcement-related personnel from the
states and territories and federal agencies. I think that is an inappropriate
body to be setting research directions as we would understand criminological
research. I think it does show a lack of understanding about the distinction
between law enforcement-related intelligence gathering—which is a legitimate
and important function—and criminological research, which is about
understanding the underlying factors that contribute to and worsen or reduce
crime. I think that is not a great solution, to have the board—as currently
constituted—directing research. I think it would result in a diminution of the
research function, and it would be a disaster, actually.[11]
2.16
ANZSOC suggested that the requirement for such an advisory body to be
consulted should be enshrined in the Bill.[12]
2.17
Mr Chris Dawson, Interim Director of the AIC, told the committee that 'certainly
my undertaking is that such [an advisory] body should remain, and I have
briefed the existing board and the existing advisory cohort of that' as well as
the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers.[13]
In respect of the membership of an advisory body in the future, Mr Dawson
stated:
We are proposing that the advisory body could be
reconstituted to retain justice representation, to include two law enforcement
representatives and to include Crime Commission staff, so Dr Brown and/or other
people that are pure criminologists, to also provide that representation. At
the moment, it is my view that the representation is not broad enough. We have
had discussions continuing in that vein, and tomorrow there will be, yet again,
another opportunity to consult.[14]
2.18
The Attorney-General's Department, ACC and AIC confirmed that:
Under the section 7C of the ACC Act, the ACC Board has the
functions of providing strategic direction to the ACC and determining the
priorities of the ACC. Following a merger, this function will include
determining the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre's strategic
direction and criminological research priorities. While the ACC Board includes
law enforcement representatives from the Australian Federal Police and each
state and territory police force, it also includes Commonwealth representatives
that have broader policy interests, including the Attorney-General’s Department
and Australian Taxation Office.
It is proposed that the ACC Board will take advice from a non-legislated
Research Advisory Committee. The Research Advisory Committee is intended to
perform a similar role to the current Criminology Research Advisory Council.
This will ensure that justice agencies continue to play a central role in
advising on the Australian Crime and Justice Research Centre’s priorities.
At the most recent Criminology Research Advisory Council meeting
on 20 November 2015, it was agreed that the new Research Advisory Committee
would consist of the Advisory Council's existing members plus two
representatives from the ACC, two law enforcement representatives (to be
selected by the ACC Board) and a representative from the Australia and New
Zealand Society of Criminology. These changes are intended to broaden range of
stakeholders from which advice is received regarding crime and justice research
priorities. The ACC CEO also proposes that the Research Advisory Committee
would meet twice per year, with one meeting focused on research priorities and
another on Criminology Research Grants (CRG).[15]
2.19
In response to the suggestion that the advisory body and a requirement
to consult it be enshrined in legislation, the ACC argued that this was
undesirable because advice to the ACJRC about its research agenda must be 'both
contemporary and relevant to the existing environment'.[16]
The Attorney-General's Department concurred, telling the committee that:
The intention here is not to in any way derogate the very
fine work that the AIC has done; it is actually just to take advantage of the
opportunity, as Mr Dawson said, that we think can be presented by
combining the two agencies and their respective capabilities and resources.
It is worth noting that the bill does ensure that the merged
body will be able to maintain all of the existing key functions of the AIC in
conducting research and disseminating the results of that research—all of those
key things, including engaging in things that are necessarily incidental like
conferences and so on. The ACC would be able to continue all of those
functions. I understand the concerns; I think that putting something in
legislation that would actually hamper the flexibility of the operational
arrangements is not the most desirable way of responding to those concerns.[17]
Allocation of grants
2.20
The GCI discussed the allocation of Criminology Research Grants (CRGs)
by the AIC and the importance of these to early career academics and
small-scale trial projects:
The criminology research grants are small grants in the scheme
of academic grants. Typically how they have been used in universities like ours
is for early career scholars, for late-stage PhD students and for very small
trial projects. Our major sources of government funding come from the
Australian Research Council schemes, which more experienced scholars can
access. So I think the danger would be the loss of opportunity for early career
academics starting out. The message that what counts in Australia is this very
applied law enforcement related research and that more difficult, long-term
research about the causes and treatment of crime and criminogenic factors in
society are not going to be funded or appreciated in this way. If you are
asking if we have got much in the way of dollars to lose, the answer is no. It
is a tiny fraction of our research budget, but I think we will lose
opportunities for younger scholars in particular, and that would be a shame.[18]
2.21
The AIC told the committee that the allocation of grants and the funding
for them was the subject of ongoing discussion with the CRAC.[19]
The department, ACC and AIC jointly advised:
The ACC CEO also proposes that the Research Advisory
Committee would meet twice per year, with one meeting focused on research
priorities and another on Criminology Research Grants (CRG).
It is also proposed that the Research Advisory Committee
would still have a role in advising the CEO on CRG applicants through a CRG
subgroup. Membership of the CRG subgroup will consist of Research Advisory
Committee members who provide a financial contribution to the CRG fund. These arrangements
will create a strong and independent committee structure to provide advice to
the ACC Board on research priorities for the ACJRC.[20]
Public access to data and library resources
2.22
The public accessibility of the AIC's datasets and library resources
under the ACJRC was raised by some witnesses.
2.23
ANZSOC was concerned that merging the AIC into the ACC would reduce the
accessibility of data previously available to researchers and the public.[21]
Professor Sarre outlined his fear and described a conversation with Mr
Chris Dawson, CEO of the ACC:
...we did talk generally about the databases. You have
mentioned deaths in custody, Indigenous and other databases that the AIC has
been collecting—the homicide database et cetera—over the last couple of
decades. I will not suggest that he guaranteed that those databases would be
continuing for the foreseeable future, but I did talk about the library access.
The JV Barry Library is one that is held in high acclaim amongst criminologists
in this country—and internationally, I should add—and I raised some concerns
with him that there may be some problems with internationals trying to access
information from behind the walls of the ACC if the JV Barry Library were to go
into some sort of brick wall or curfew. I asked him about the peer reviewing of
publications which would continue to flow from the ACC by the researchers. I
asked him about whether or not there would be roundtables, internships,
fellowships and those sorts of things. You mentioned corrections, which I
mentioned before—those sorts of things which would be in the broad remit of a
general criminology understanding and not necessarily at all in the general
remit of the ACC.[22]
2.24
The GCI acknowledged the value of the AIC's data and library resources
and emphasised the importance of continued access to this valuable information,
stating:
It has been a national repository and library, and we would
want to see the library maintained. The JV Barry Library makes a major
contribution to research around Australia. The data resources it has collected
are invaluable. I am talking in particular about the national monitoring
programs on deaths in custody, homicide, drug use and firearms trafficking. The
website has been a go-to resource—I speak not just as a researcher but also as
an educator—for students in criminology and criminal justice. The very first
place we tell them to look for any data on anything about crime in Australia is
the AIC website. It is essential that that be maintained and continued.[23]
2.25
Civil Liberties Australia argued that the secrecy associated with the
ACC's work could reduce public confidence in the ACJRC reports, stating:
Given the inherent—indeed, legislated—secrecy of the ACC and
the reluctance to subject their reports to peer review of external scrutiny,
there will certainly be a rapid loss in public confidence in the data/reports
produced.[24]
2.26
The AIC acknowledged that determining what information from the ACJRC could
be published and reported would be a matter of balance, and that the Bill provides
for that balance.[25]
Mr Dawson stated:
...we see that the access to the existing website should
continue. To that end, we have already been embarking on digitising a lot of
the JV Barry research holdings. Presently, a lot of them are in hard copy, so
the crime commission has been funding the JV Barry librarians to digitise a lot
of those holdings. We see that as an enhanced opportunity for both
criminological research and, indeed, for the public. Should they want to access
that, they should not have to physically come to Canberra to the library,
although we are moving to a new premises and we have designed it so that people
can publicly access that. That is an opportunity, but we see an opportunity to
grow the digital database so that people can virtually access it. That, of
course, is very important.
I am confident that the centre will provide and combine the
best of what the AIC has historically provided. But we see that, while law
enforcement research will form part of the mix, it should by no means
characterise the full extent of what I see that criminological research can
contribute.[26]
2.27
The Attorney-General's Department informed the committee:
In terms of the datasets, not only will the centre continue
to have access to the existing datasets available to the AIC; it will continue
to carry out the AIC's three work streams: statistical monitoring programs—and
you have heard about those; fee-for-service research, which is about a third of
the work that it does; and thematic research on crime and justice priorities.
In addition to those datasets, the researchers will also get access to existing
sensitive, classified law enforcement information. So they will actually get
access to more and richer datasets than they currently are able to access.
The bill does propose a new information disclosure regime for
the ACC Act to deal with criminological research figures. The ACC Act does
actually set up very restrictive arrangements with respect to disclosure of the
sensitive information that the AIC holds. The bill actually creates an entirely
new regime to enable the ongoing dissemination of criminological research. That
is seen as being a very important thing to continue. As you have heard from Mr
Dawson earlier, the library is not only going to continue to be open publicly;
it is also being digitised so that its holdings will, in fact, become more
accessible to more people both domestically and internationally.[27]
Committee view
2.28
The Bill's broad objectives are to enhance the ability of the ACC to
support and inform the work of Australian law enforcement agencies, and to create
central access to a consolidated criminal research and intelligence resource.[28]
The proposed merger of the AIC and ACC recognises the expertise of the two
agencies and is intended to make better use of synergies between them, such as
applying the criminological research expertise of the AIC to the ACC's data
holdings and intelligence.
2.29
The committee is supportive of these objectives and accepts the
assurances of the ACC and Attorney-General's Department that the independence
and integrity of criminological research in Australia will be maintained under
the ACJRC.
2.30
The committee is pleased that a Research Advisory Council (RAC) will
provide advice to the ACC Board about the research agenda and priorities of the
ACJRC. The committee believes it is important that the RAC includes
representation by a criminology expert and the committee acknowledges the
government's undertaking to appoint a member of ANZSOC to the RAC.
2.31
In addition to advising on the research agenda for the ACJRC, the
committee notes that the RAC will also have a role in determining the
allocation of CRGs. The committee believes this will ensure that criminological
research in Australia continues to have a broad focus, including social risks
and determinants of crime, and is not inappropriately skewed towards law enforcement
and policing.
2.32
In respect of access to data, the ACC and the Attorney-General's
Department explained that the ACJRC's access to data and its subsequent
research will be enriched by access to the ACC's data holdings. The committee
also welcomes advice from the ACC and the department that the research holdings
at the JV Barry Library will be more accessible to the public following the
merger.
2.33
The committee therefore recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
Recommendation 1
2.34
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page