CHAPTER 2
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO
2.1
This chapter summarises some of the matters raised during the
committee's consideration of the budget estimates for the Attorney-General's Portfolio
for the 2014–15 financial year.
Australian Crime Commission (ACC)
Fiscal constraints and staff
reductions
2.2
In his opening statement to the committee, the Chief Executive Officer
of the ACC, Mr Chris Dawson, emphasised the importance of the commission as
'the backbone of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Network', and suggested
that crime in Australia influenced everything from the welfare of communities
and the health of individuals to the profitability of legitimate businesses and
government revenue.[1]
Mr Dawson informed the committee that the work of the commission had never
been higher, yet it had to carry out its operations under increasing resource
constraints and reduced government funding. The committee heard that, in the
face of this new fiscal environment, full-time employees at the commission would
drop from their current level of 524 to 450 by 2017–18, yet, in his view, the
commission required 600 full-time employees as a minimum workforce to be fully
effective.[2]
2.3
In response to this, the Attorney-General commented that, given the
general fiscal environment that the government operated within, the reductions
in funding to the ACC were relatively modest compared to most other government
agencies. He further drew the committee's attention to the government's new
policy of releasing money collected under the Proceeds of Crime Act and placed
in the confiscated assets account to the commission for its operations, which
would have returned to general revenue under the previous policy.[3]
2.4
The committee questioned officials as to the effect that staff
reductions might have on the activities and core capabilities of the ACC, and
how the activities of the commission would be prioritised in light of this:
Senator SINGH: Will this staff reduction have an
effect on some of the programs and the activities of the ACC? I spoke last time
in depth with Mr Jevtovic about the National Criminal Intelligence Fusion
Capability, which I think has been developed over the last two years. Will a
staffing reduction have an effect on the delivery of that kind of capability?
Mr Dawson: We will have to make an assessment of the
totality of our capabilities. Fusion is a very important part of the
commission's work. I cannot state with certainty that no staff in the fusion
area will be reduced. We have a number of different capabilities, whether they
be in physical surveillance or whether they be investigators or analysts et
cetera. The fusion capability of course is one of the very important elements
of the work that we do. With a declining FTE we will proportionately decrease
staff across specific areas.
Senator SINGH: Is this where you have to prioritise
where you want to see staff lost from? Presumably there are important
components, such as fusion capability, that need a certain quota of staff
within them to make them run effectively. Surely it is a priority of the ACC to
ensure that kind of fusion capability continues. Obviously, with natural
attrition, you are going to have people offering voluntary redundancy, but you
may not want job losses in those areas. What are you going to do as far as prioritising
the most important areas for staff to remain in?
Mr Dawson: I will be ensuring that the core
capabilities—and fusion is one of those core capabilities—are maintained so
that we can continue to deliver the outputs required. If there are areas which
are of a lower priority—and there are some that are lower priority than the
fusion—of course we would look at those areas before we look at key priority
areas.
Senator SINGH: That is good to hear.[4]
Australian Federal Police (AFP)
2.5
The new security measures being trialled at Parliament House to speed up
members' access to the building was cause for concern for some senators.
Officials were questioned as to whether the new arrangements, which allow
certain pass holders to move through security gates without having their
belongings scanned, could pose a significant risk to building security. In
particular, it was suggested that certain of these pass holders may be 'compromised'
and forced to engage in criminal activity. Mr Tony Negus, Commissioner
of the AFP, agreed that the new arrangements did pose a risk and were subject
to ongoing consideration by his agency, along with other measures.[5]
Mr Negus indicated that he had expressed his concerns to the Department of
Finance about what effect the reductions in funding to the Department of
Parliamentary Services might have on the security of Parliament House and that
discussions with relevant parties were ongoing.[6]
2.6
The committee questioned the AFP on a range of other matters, including
the security of Hobart airport following the proposed removal of all AFP
officers; the Prime Minister's transitional accommodation arrangements at the
AFP training college in Canberra and associated costs; metadata surveillance of
members of parliament; the AFP raid on Seven West Media and associated legal
costs; and AFP investigations into breaches of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Attorney-General's Department (AGD)
2.7
Officials from the AGD faced a range of questions, on topics including
funding arrangements for royal commissions, possible amendments to the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975 and funding arrangements for community legal
centres.
Funding arrangements for Royal Commissions
into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Home Insulation
Program
2.8
The committee gave particular attention to the funding arrangements for
the Royal Commissions into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and
the Home Insulation Program. Responding to statements made by the Shadow
Attorney-General, the secretary of the AGD, Mr Roger Wilkins AO, made a
statement to clarify funding arrangements. He informed the committee that
funding had been reduced from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses
to Child Sexual Abuse, but that this royal commission did not require that
funding.[7]
Some $4 million in savings had come from the commission's 'capital fit-out
works', which had come in under budget.[8]
He confirmed that this money, along with an additional $2.7 million in savings
due to the Commonwealth not incurring budgeted costs for appearing at the
commission, were used to fund the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation
Program to the amount of $6.7 million, though he emphasised that this $6.7 million
would have otherwise returned to consolidated revenue and the reductions in
funding would not affect the operations of the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.[9]
2.9
The secretary was asked a series of questions relating to these funding
arrangements. In particular, he was asked to clarify an apparent contradiction
in the department's answer to a question on notice (number 16 from 2014–15
additional estimates) and his own statement to the committee. In the question
on notice, it was indicated that $2.7 in savings were 'redirected from funding
provided to the department and not required for 2013–14 for financial
assistance for legal costs and related expenses for witnesses'.[10]
However, in his statement regarding where those savings were to be made, Mr
Wilkins had informed the committee that savings were from:
moneys not required for financial and legal costs that we
expect to be incurred by the Commonwealth as a party to the royal commission.
It did not impact on funding for other witnesses before the royal commission or
the royal commission itself.[11]
2.10
In response to this, officials conceded that the answer provided to the
question on notice did not sufficiently clarify from where the savings had
come.[12]
Officials confirmed that the $2.7 million in savings had come entirely from
funding for the Commonwealth's appearances as a party to the commission and had
not come from funding for witnesses.[13]
2.11
The Attorney-General faced further questions regarding the model for
funding witnesses at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse, and whether such funding could be guaranteed into the future:
Senator KIM CARR: Minister, can you agree that all
the survivors of child sexual abuse who wish to give evidence to the Royal
Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse will receive the financial
assistance they require?
Senator Brandis: The government has always been fully
supportive of the work of the royal commission. It has provided for legal
assistance to witnesses who require it. As Ms Dines has said, a lot of them do
not because of the circumstances in which they have come before the commission.
As far as I can foresee, that will continue.[14]
Exposure draft amendments to
section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
2.12
Of particular interest to the committee was the exposure draft of amendments
to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Officials faced a
range of questions regarding public opinion on these amendments, their final
form and the effect they would have on public discussion in Australia if
adopted. The Attorney-General informed the committee that the form of changes
to section 18C were yet to be finalised and told the committee that, in the
government's opinion, changes were necessary as the current act is 'way too
restrictive of freedom of discussion' and 'does not provide effective
protection against racial vilification'.[15]
2.13
The exposure draft amendments were released for public consultation on
25 March 2014. The AGD received 5,557 related public submissions, which,
according to the Attorney-General, represented a wide variety of views
regarding the draft. The committee heard that these submissions would not be
published by the department, nor would a breakdown of views be made public.
This was a cause of consternation for some senators, but the Attorney-General
explained:
This was not an opinion poll. This was to solicit views of
the community about what was the best way to deal with this matter. We did not
embark upon an opinion-polling exercise. What we did was ask the community to
tell us their ideas. The government went to the election with the announced
policy of reforming section 18C or, as I sometimes put it, repealing section
18C in its current form. That is our policy; that is what we are going to do. For
that reason our policy was not to leave section 18C unamended, nor was it our
policy to repeal section 18C entirely, as a lot of people would like to see us
do. What I am particularly interested in are those people who have good ideas
about ways in which the section can be improved. That is what I am looking for;
I am looking for ideas. If I can put it this way, this is a qualitative, not a
quantitative, exercise.[16]
2.14
The effect amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act might have more
broadly upon Australian society was also explored. In particular, one senator
questioned the Attorney-General on the possible risk that changes to the Act
might create a perception overseas that Australia is a country tolerant of
racism and the effect this might have on Australia's standing as a major
education provider to the international market.[17]
In response, the Attorney-General stated his opinion that, while Australia was
not a racist country, there were pockets of the community that were, and that
it was best to expose such racism head on. He informed the committee that he believed
changes to the Racial Discrimination Act would help achieve this.[18]
Cuts to legal services advocacy
funding for community legal centres
2.15
As part of new funding arrangements announced in the May 2014 budget,
community legal centres were informed that they could no longer access funding
from the Commonwealth for advocacy and law reform work. The committee sought
details about the rationale behind this decision. The Attorney-General
indicated that the ultimate shape of the policy would be informed by a number
of things, including the Productivity Commission's final report into access to
justice services, which is due for release by the end of the year.[19]
He indicated that a decision had been made to prioritise what he described as
'the most important work' of providing front-line services for those most in
need in the community, given a budget-constrained environment and finite
resources.[20]
According to the Attorney-General:
My view is that where people are missing out on legal
representation and legal advice, then that is a bad thing. If they miss out
because there are not enough resources in the system, then an injustice is
done. Whereas, the kind of advocacy work or law reform work of which you are
speaking can still be done by those very access to justice providers in a
voluntary way, rather than funded through government, and often they do. The
many witnesses before this very committee over the years, who have come and
commented on various pieces of legislation, very often do so in a voluntary
capacity. It is not an either/or question. If the unrepresented litigate misses
out on their day in court, they will never get that day in court back again.
But if money is not provided for advocacy services, it does not mean that the
legal aid provider cannot be an advocate anyway by volunteering their services
in writing papers, appearing before parliamentary committee or all the other
range of activity comprehended by that term.[21]
Changes to the Australian Human
Rights Commission (AHRC)
2.16
At the request of the committee, Professor Gillian Triggs, President,
Mr Graeme Innes AM, Disability Discrimination Commissioner,
Dr Tim Soutphommasane, Race Discrimination Commissioner, and Mr Tim
Wilson, Human Rights Commissioner, appeared on behalf of the Australian Human
Rights Commission. Professor Triggs informed the committee that the commission
was currently in a period of transition to manage budgetary constraints. The
committee heard that the AHRC was in the process of finalising its strategic
plan for the next four years, which will see it prioritise engagement with the
business sector on human rights, violence, harassment and bullying, and the
general human rights education program.[22]
2.17
The committee heard that Mr Innes' term as Disability Discrimination
Commissioner would soon conclude[23]
and asked questions regarding this role following Mr Innes' departure from the
AHRC.[24]
2.18
Mr Wilson further advised the committee of his intention to fund some of
the AHRC's activities, such as a planned symposium on free speech, with private
sector support and sponsorship, to reduce or eliminate public expenditure on
such initiatives.[25]
When asked what arrangements were in place to ensure transparency around the
sponsorship of such initiatives, Mr Wilson indicated that sponsorship of
the AHRC's activities had precedent in the commission's history, and that the
commission had guidelines regarding transparency and accountability to ensure
the AHRC was not unduly influenced by such sponsorship.[26]
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)
2.19
Mr David Irvine, the Director General of Security, advised the committee
that there exist two mechanisms by which reviews of adverse security
assessments of asylum seekers occur. According to Mr Irvine, ASIO itself has
been reviewing the adverse assessments it has given over the previous 'three or
four years'.[27]
Reviews are also conducted independently by former judge Margaret Stone, acting
in her role as Independent Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments:
Mr Irvine: ...She mostly interviews the people concerned
and she then provides advice to me on whether she believes our original
assessment was warranted or not. So far, of about 45 or 50 left, she has
completed 22 such reviews.
Senator XENOPHON: How many has she changed?
Mr Irvine: Of that 22 she has agreed that ASIO's assessment
was justified in 18 cases. In three cases she felt that our assessment was not
appropriate and she asked me and my organisation to reassess those people.
Senator XENOPHON: Yes.
Mr Irvine: In two cases she thought the assessment was
wrong and we looked at it and agreed that we would issue a non-prejudicial
assessment.
Senator XENOPHON: In two cases?
Mr Irvine: In two cases, yes. In one case she argued
that we should have issued a qualified assessment, and we agreed with that. On
the basis of new information which she drew to our attention we actually
changed an assessment to a qualified assessment of the fourth person. So, that
is four out of 22.
Senator XENOPHON: So, there is a check and balance in
the system through former Judge Stone.
Mr Irvine: There is.[28]
2.20
Mr Irvine was questioned about the involvement of Australian nationals
in the conflict in Syria and ASIO's interventions to limit that involvement. The
committee was informed that ASIO is currently investigating approximately 150
people:
both onshore in Australia who are supporting, facilitating,
helping organise, providing material or indeed seeking to recruit or be
recruited into the foreign fighters in Syria, as well as the foreign fighters
in Syria itself.[29]
2.21
For security reasons, Mr Irvine could not detail the exact breakdown of the
group.[30]
2.22
One of the principle mechanisms for nullifying illegal participation of
Australian nationals in the conflict is through the cancellation of passports.
Mr Irvine outlined the process by which ASIO can seek to effect such
cancellations, in collaboration with the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He suggested that, while he was comfortable
with current arrangements, in certain circumstances it would be useful, in
situations of particular urgency, for there to be a more direct way for ASIO to
cancel passports itself, which would be automatically subject to a review
within a set period.[31]
Other matters of interest
2.23
Other areas of interest to the committee during examination of the
department and portfolio agencies included: cuts to funding for the arts;[32]
cabinet confidentiality and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's statement to the
Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program;[33]
funding levels for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services;[34]
the proposed amalgamation of the MRT, Refugee Review Tribunal, Administrative
Appeals Tribunal and the Classification Review Board;[35]
funding arrangements and payments under the National Disaster Relief and
Recovery Arrangements;[36]
the new ASIO building;[37]
and the legality of US drone strikes that killed two Australians in Yemen,
among other subjects.[38]
Senator the Hon Ian
Macdonald
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page