Chapter 1 - Annual reports of statutory authorities

Reports referred to the Committee

1.1 The following reports of statutory authorities for the financial year 2002-2003 were referred to the Committee for examination and report:

Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement
Administrative Review Council
Australasian Police Ministers' Council
Australian Crime Commission
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
Cape York Land Council
Central Land Council
Central Queensland Land Council Aboriginal Corporation
Goldfields Land and Sea Council
Gurang Land Council
High Court of Australia
Kimberley Land Council
Mirimbiak Nations Aboriginal Corporation
Ngaanyatjarra Council Native Title Unit (Aboriginal Corporation)
North Queensland Land Council (Aboriginal Corporation)
Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
Queensland South Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation
South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council
Yamatji Marlpa Barna Baba Maaja Aboriginal Corporation

1.2 The Committee has elected to comment on the annual reports and performance of a number of the statutory authorities listed above. These comments constitute the remainder of the chapter.

Australian Crime Commission (ACC)

1.3 This annual report covers the first full year of operations for the Australian Crime Commission which was formed in January 2003. The ACC was formed with the aim of enhancing law enforcement cooperation between State, Territory and Commonwealth Governments.

1.4 Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mr Mick Keelty, describes the creation of the ACC as addressing:

the need to improve the strategic understanding of crime in Australia, with a particular emphasis on nationally significant activity and the development of innovative and effective responses to it.[4]

1.5 The Board overseeing the ACC comprises the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Chair), Commissioners of the State and Territory police forces, including the Chief Police Officer of the ACT, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, the CEO of the Australian Customs Service, the Chair of the Australian Securities Investments Commission, the Director-General of Security and the CEO of the ACC.

1.6 The report describes one of the primary functions of the ACC as being the collection of criminal intelligence and the establishment of national intelligence priorities. The ACC will, amongst other operations, also target nationally organised crime across a range of illegal activity including motor vehicle rebirthing, money laundering and tax fraud, the trafficking of illegal firearms, identity crime and drug offences.

1.7 The ACC board authorised the Commission to complete a number of National Crime Authority (NCA) investigations which were incomplete at the time the NCA ceased operations. These included South East Asian Organised Crime, Money Laundering and Established Crime Networks references.

1.8 The report advises of the success of ACC fraud coordination and intelligence sharing arrangements with a number of agencies including the development of new relationships with New Zealand Police and island nations in the South Pacific. The ACC sees these new relationships as being particularly significant as the work:

directly enhances the capacity of Australian Law Enforcement agencies to deal with identity fraud as a crime enabler and to impact on a range of serious and organised crime issues.[5]

1.9 The Committee finds the annual report of the Australian Crime Commission to be "apparently satisfactory."

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)

1.10 The Committee notes the restructuring of ASIO over the reporting period from three to five divisions allowing for the anticipated expansion of the Organisation over the coming years.

1.11 The ASIO annual report advises of additional funding provided in the 2002-2003 budget of $48.3 million over four years and a further $14.9 million per year thereafter. Following the Bali bombings in October 2002, the Organisation is also to receive additional funding of $28.5 million over five years. Projects for which this funding was provided included:

ASIO's 24-hour alert and monitoring capability;

increased overseas liaison in the Middle East and Southeast Asia;

enhanced counter-terrorism cooperation with other Australian law enforcement, intelligence and border control agencies; and

the expansion of ASIO's technical analysis capabilities.

1.12 The report showed a 20% increase in the demand for protective security advice 'reflecting heightened awareness of the need to protect Commonwealth resources, staff and visitors.'[6] Advice was provided to a variety of clients including the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, the Sydney Airport Corporation, Austrade, Comcar and South Australia's Government House.

1.13 There were 7,537 calls referred to ASIO from the National Security Hotline over the reporting period. Of those, 1,049 were considered to contain sufficient information to warrant further investigation. At the time of reporting, there were 141 ongoing investigations.

1.14 The report advises of two notable legislative amendments passed by the Parliament over the reporting period. Those being the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002, designed to 'enhance Australia's capability to combat terrorism' and the Criminal Code Amendment (Espionage and Related Offences) Act 2002 which strengthens 'criminal provisions relating to the deliberate disclosure to a foreign power of national security information.'[7]

1.15 The Committee finds the annual report of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to be "apparently satisfactory."

Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

1.16 The annual report advises of a number of important developments impacting on the work of the Office. January 2003 saw the introduction of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which authorises the confiscation of the proceeds of crime through civil proceedings. In order to implement the Act, the Office has been required to recruit and train new staff, formulate new guidelines and policy documents and update Information Technology systems. The report advises:

that the Act has provided the DPP with a range of new tools and the indications are that it will provide an effective addition to the Commonwealth's armoury to control and deter crime.[8]

1.17 The government announced on 3 July that the DPP would be responsible for prosecuting any criminal action found to have arisen from the financial collapse of HIH Insurance Limited and related companies. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) advised the DPP that it will not be limiting the scope of its investigation to the 53 matters referred to in the report of HIH Royal Commissioner, Justice Owen. As a result, the Office expects to be involved in the prosecution of a number of further cases which may arise from investigations into the collapse of HIH.

1.18 The Office will also be responsible for the prosecution of cases arising from the Royal Commission into the Building Industry as well as any cases referred by the Building Industry Task Force.

1.19 The report advises of the results of a client satisfaction survey undertaken in 2002, as required by its Corporate Plan. The survey revealed that, overall, responding Commonwealth and State agencies gave high ratings to the DPP for the quality of its prosecution work, legal advice and criminal assets work. Some negative comments were received concerning the timeliness of DPP work, whilst some agencies identified liaison related problems.

1.20 The Committee notes that the DPP has new guidelines for the preparation of briefs of evidence which it believes will assist to speed up the assessment process. The new guidelines provide, for the first time, a common set of instructions for all Commonwealth investigators for the preparation of briefs of evidence. In addition:

the DPP plans to develop training materiel for its officers on liaison with investigative agencies and will hold in-house training on this topic. Reducing the scope for misunderstanding between agencies is likely to lead to better liaison.[9]

1.21 The Committee finds the annual report of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to be "apparently satisfactory."

Ngaanyatjarra Council Native Title Unit (Aboriginal Corporation)

1.22 The Ngaanyatjarra Council has, over the reporting period, continued to progress the native title interests of the 2000 Indigenous persons living in a number of communities in the Central Desert region of Western Australia.

1.23 At the time of reporting, the Council had 14 claims registered with the National Native Title Tribunal. The Council was involved in the determination of a grant of native title to the Martu people in September 2002. In relation to that grant, the report states:

A determination of exclusive possession native title was achieved over an area of 136,000 sq km of what was formerly unallocated crown land. Mediation to resolve the outstanding un-determined areas continued under the direction of the National Native Title Tribunal.[10]

1.24 The Chairperson's report advises that one of the major difficulties faced after a grant of native title is the 'issue of building workable Prescribed Bodies Corporate'[11] (PBC) due, at least in part, to the expensive and complex nature of the work required for their successful establishment.

1.25 The Committee is pleased to note that despite such difficulties, the Council has been active in consultations regarding the rules for the Kiwirrkurra PBC and has also been involved in negotiations leading to the successful registration of the Martu PBC with the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations.

1.26 The report notes that one of the main challenges for the Council has been to strike an acceptable balance between mining and exploration activities and the best interests of traditional land owners:

The mining industry is seen by many as the economic life force of Western Australia. The reality is that exploration activities create enormous pressures for Aboriginal people who are strongly traditional in outlook, and who have a responsibility to look after the integrity of their country and their society. One of the challenges ahead for the Native Title Unit is to improve understanding on all sides.[12]

1.27 The Committee notes that the Council had some considerable difficulty implementing a new accounting system to satisfy the reporting requirements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the Native Title Act 1993. As a result of these and other difficulties, including the 'untimely resignation in 2002 of the Council's Finance Manager'[13], the report advises that the Council was unable to publish its annual report within the usual timeframe.

1.28 The Committee also notes the absence of a Letter of Transmittal in the report, which caused some difficulty in determining the Council's reporting requirements.

1.29 With the exception of the matter of the lack of a Letter of Transmittal and the Council's lateness in the presentation of its report, as noted above, the Committee finds the annual report of the Ngaanyatjarra Council Native Title Unit (Aboriginal Corporation) to be "apparently satisfactory."

North Queensland Land Council (Aboriginal Corporation)

1.30 Over the reporting period, the Council was able to complete the purchase of its operating premises in Manunda. The building is seen as an important and valuable asset that will support the long term future needs of the Council.

1.31 The report indicates a number of significant changes in the Council's operating environment, particularly in relation to ongoing funding. The Council's funding body, (Native Title and Land Rights Branch) advised that Land Councils would in future "be funded as a service delivery organisation and not as 'community-based' organisations"[14] as had previously been the case. As a result, the Council has determined that it will need to 'focus more on negotiated agreements for outcomes as opposed to limiting its activities to the pursuit of native title consent determinations'[15]

1.32 The Council advises that it has been able to reduce its costs in relation to the funding of external lawyers for the pursuit of native title claims due to the 'retention of staff and a corresponding consolidation of and increase in experience and expertise.'[16] Consequently, this has allowed the Council to allocate greater resources to other areas including anthropological research.

1.33 There was further progress over the year in the use Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). The Council hopes to see 'a great many of the mining notices dealt with under the provisions of ILUA's'[17] and has been active in negotiations between the Queensland Mining Council and the State of Queensland over the processing of future mining exploration permits in Queensland. At the time of reporting, negotiations were also in train for ILUAs with pastoralists in the western region of the Land Council's area of operation.

1.34 With regard to native title outcomes, the Council participated in a number of priority setting agreements with the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) and the State of Queensland. The Council together with the NNTT and the State of Queensland have identified the Yarrabah cluster of claims, the Njadgon People's claim and the Djabugay claim as being high priority claims.

1.35 The Committee finds the annual report of the North Queensland Land Council (Aboriginal Corporation) to be "apparently satisfactory."

South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (SWALSC)

1.36 The report advises of a significant policy shift in the management of native title claim representation during the reporting period:

The new policy called for the amalgamation of the large, inclusive community claims and the formation of a Single Noongar Claim.[18]

1.37 The Council viewed the policy shift as more resource efficient than a number of smaller individual claims. Available evidence suggests that the Noongar people form a single cultural bloc with some claimants having rights and responsibilities in more than one claim area which has led to conflict and confusion between applicant groups.

1.38 The Committee notes the Council has been conducting ongoing negotiations with the Western Australian State Government and a number of industry bodies to:

develop a Regional Heritage Protection Agreement (RHPA) that encompasses the whole of the South West region of Western Australia;

amend the Mining Act (1978) and Mining Regulations.[19]

1.39 The Council reported that it has also been actively promoting the use of ILUAs between claimants and other land users as and where appropriate. Over the reporting period the Council assisted in the negotiation of:

An ILUA between the 16 member councils of the Central Zone of the Western Australian Local Government Association, the Balardong, Gnaala Karla Boola and Wagl Kaip peoples, and the State of Western Australia. As of 30 June, the parties were waiting on a response from the State.

An ILUA with CALM [Conservation and Land Management] over new National Parks. SWALSC staff are preparing a draft agreement that calls for the freehold return of National Park land (on a lease back basis), Noongar participation in park management, and Noongar access for traditional practices.[20]

1.40 The Council also reports having made substantial progress in the development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with a range of agencies. This has included agreements with the Western Australian Local Government Association, the Department of Indigenous Affairs, the Aboriginal Lands Trust, the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Office of Aboriginal Economic Development.

1.41 The Committee finds the annual report of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council to be "apparently satisfactory."