Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016

Bills Digest no. 38, 2016–17

PDF version [605KB]

Cat Barker
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section
17 November 2016

Contents

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

Position of major interest groups

Financial implications

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

Schedule 1: LECC-related amendments

Background

TIA Act

Main amendments
Dealing with lawfully intercepted information and interception warrant information
Transitional provisions

SD Act

Transitional provisions

Other amendments

Updating references in other Acts
Transitional provisions
Transfer of information and things

Schedule 2: IBAC-related amendments

Background
Australia Post information
Defence to telecommunications offences
Surveillance Devices

Schedule 3: Proceeds of Crime Act amendments

Background
Definition and interpretation of ‘lawfully acquired’
Amendments

Date introduced: 19 October 2016
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement: Schedules 2 and 3 commence the day after Royal Assent. For Schedule 1, see page 3 of this Digest.

Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian Parliament website.

When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation website.

All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at November 2016.

Purpose and structure of the Bill

The Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (the Bill) comprises three schedules, each of which deals with a separate matter.

The purpose of Schedule 1 is to amend the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) (TIA Act), Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) (SD Act) and other Commonwealth Acts to reflect the consolidation of law enforcement oversight functions in New South Wales under the new Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC).

The purpose of Schedule 2 is to:

amend the SD Act to allow the Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) to apply for Commonwealth surveillance device warrants to support relevant investigations
amend the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth) to allow Australia Post employees to disclose information to the IBAC to assist IBAC investigations and
amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) to apply defences to certain Commonwealth telecommunications offences to IBAC officers.

The purpose of Schedule 3 is to amend the definition of ‘lawfully acquired’ as it applies to property or wealth under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (PoC Act).

Commencement

Sections 1 to 3 will commence on Royal Assent. Schedules 2 and 3 will commence the day after Royal Assent.

The amendments relating to the LECC will be contingent on the commencement of provisions in the New South Wales (NSW) Act establishing the LECC, which received Royal Assent on 14 November 2016.[1] Specifically:

Parts 1 and 6 of Schedule 1 will commence the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent or the day Part 3 of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) commences, whichever is later. As Part 3 of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) commenced on 14 November 2016, Parts 1 and 6 of Schedule 1 to the Bill will commence on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent and
Parts 2 to 5 of Schedule 1 will commence the day after Royal Assent or the day section 51 of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) commences, whichever is later. Section 51 of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) will commence by proclamation, on a date that has not yet been determined.

Background

Background is provided separately for each of the Schedules in the relevant sections of this Digest, starting from page four.

Committee consideration

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

The Attorney-General requested that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) review item 28 of Schedule 1 of the Bill. That item will replace the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) with the LECC in the definition of ‘criminal law enforcement agency’ under the TIA Act. The PJCIS is expected to report by 18 November 2016. Details are at the inquiry homepage.[2]

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills sought more detailed justification from the Minister for applying the amendments to the definition of ‘lawfully acquired’ in the PoC Act to property or wealth acquired before commencement in addition to on or after the commencement of the Bill.[3] The Explanatory Memorandum states that applying the amendments in this way:

... will be necessary to ensure that relevant orders are not frustrated by requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain evidence of, and prove, the precise point in time at which certain property or wealth was acquired. Such a requirement would be unnecessarily onerous and would be contrary to the objects of the Act.[4]

The Committee considered that justification to be insufficient and questioned how requiring proof of when property or wealth was acquired would be contrary to the objects of the PoC Act.[5]

Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills

The Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills recommended that the Bill not be referred to a Senate Committee for inquiry and report.[6]

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

Non-government parties and independents did not appear to have publicly stated their positions on the Bill as at the date of this Digest.

Position of major interest groups

Major interest groups did not appear to have publicly stated their positions on the Bill as at the date of this Digest.

Financial implications

The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Bill will have no financial impact.[7] Given the amendments in Schedule 3 will impact when property or wealth is taken to be lawfully acquired for the purposes of the PoC Act, it may result in amounts forfeited to the Commonwealth under the Act being higher than would otherwise have been the case.

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[8]

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had not reported on the Bill as at the date of this Digest.[9]

Schedule 1: LECC-related amendments

Background

Former politician Andrew Tink reported to the NSW Government on a review of police oversight in August 2015. Mr Tink’s key recommendation was the adoption of a new model under which the functions of the Police Integrity Commission, the Police Division of the Ombudsman’s Office and the Inspector of the Crime Commission are performed by a single body.[10] The NSW Government agreed to the recommendation, and on 13 September 2016, introduced legislation to establish the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC).[11] The Bill passed the NSW Parliament on 9 November 2016 and received Royal Assent on 14 November 2016.

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) (LECC Act) will establish the LECC and give it responsibility for:

... functions relating to the detection, investigation, exposure and prevention of police corruption and officer misconduct and officer and agency maladministration and for the oversight of certain operations and procedures of the NSW Police Force and the Crime Commission.[12]

The LECC Bill will also establish the Inspector of the LECC to oversee the new agency.[13] It also includes consequential repeals and amendments, including the repeal of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 (NSW).[14]

Accordingly, Schedule 1 of the Bill will amend Commonwealth legislation to replace references to the PIC with references to the LECC, and those to the Inspector of the PIC with references to the Inspector of the LECC. This will include giving the LECC access to telecommunications interception powers and allowing the agency to apply for Commonwealth surveillance warrants for the purposes of its investigations.

TIA Act

Telecommunications interception powers are available to Commonwealth and state law enforcement agencies only in accordance with the TIA Act. Covert investigative powers are an important means of investigating corrupt conduct and misconduct. Accordingly, the TIA Act and declarations made under it allow state anti-corruption agencies to apply for telecommunications interception warrants and access to telecommunications data for such purposes.[15]

Main amendments

Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 will amend the TIA Act to reflect the consolidation of law enforcement oversight functions in NSW under the new LECC by replacing references to the PIC and the Inspector of the PIC throughout the TIA Act with references to the LECC and the Inspector of the LECC. The amendments will give the LECC access to the same powers currently available to the PIC, allowing it to:

be declared by the Attorney-General as an interception agency if it meets the criteria set out in sections 34 and 35, which would allow LECC officers to apply for telecommunications interception warrants under Part 2–5 of the TIA Act[16]
apply for stored communications warrants under Part 3–3 of the TIA Act and[17]
access telecommunications data (under authorisation) under Part 4–1 of the TIA Act.[18]

Dealing with lawfully intercepted information and interception warrant information

Section 67 of the TIA Act provides that officers and staff members of agencies may communicate, use and make records of information an agency has lawfully intercepted, information relating to a warrant issued to the agency, and information shared with the agency under section 68, only for one or more ‘permitted purposes’. ‘Permitted purpose’ is defined in subsection 5(1). Section 68 allows the chief officer of an agency to share lawfully intercepted information and interception warrant information with certain other agencies for specific purposes.

Items 3, 12, 13–15 of Schedule 1 will amend definitions in subsection 5(1), and item 19 will insert proposed subsection 5(7) into the TIA Act, to provide additional detail on what constitutes a permitted purpose in relation to the LECC. Together with amendments to section 68 of the TIA Act to be made by items 26 and 27, these amendments will have the following effect.

The LECC will be permitted to communicate, use and make records of lawfully intercepted information or interception warrant information for a purpose connected with:

an investigation by the LECC of a prescribed offence, a relevant proceeding or the making of a decision whether or not to begin a relevant proceeding, communication of the information in line with section 68 and fulfilment of record-keeping obligations (these purposes are common to all interception agencies and eligible authorities)
an investigation under Part 6 of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW) of conduct that:
- involves a police officer, administrative employee or Crime Commission officer and is, or could be, serious misconduct or serious maladministration and should be investigated
- involves the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner of Police, or the Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner of the Crime Commission and is or could be misconduct or maladministration or
- has been referred for investigation by both Houses of the Parliament of NSW
a report on an investigation under Part 6 as described above or
advice to the Governor of NSW on whether to terminate the appointment of the Commissioner of the NSW Police Force due to misbehaviour or improper conduct and associated deliberations.

The Inspector of the LECC will be permitted to communicate, use and make records of lawfully intercepted information or interception warrant information for a purpose connected with:

an investigation by the Inspector of a prescribed offence, a relevant proceeding or the making of a decision whether or not to begin a relevant proceeding, communication of the information in line with section 68 and fulfilment of record-keeping obligations (these purposes are common to all interception agencies and eligible authorities) or
dealing with misconduct or maladministration by an officer of the LECC.

Information may be communicated by another interception agency or another eligible authority to the LECC and to the Inspector of the LECC if the information relates, or appears to relate, to a matter that may give rise to an investigation by the LECC or the Inspector.

Transitional provisions

Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 contains provisions to facilitate a smooth transition to the LECC of investigations commenced by the PIC in terms of the application of the TIA Act. For example, item 29 of Schedule 1 will allow a warrant issued to the PIC before that item commences and that was in force immediately before commencement, to be treated on or after commencement as if it had been issued to the LECC. Other items make similar provision in relation to authorisations, preservation notices, and several types of evidentiary certificates.[19]

SD Act

Use of surveillance devices is regulated under both Commonwealth and state and territory laws. The SD Act provides the framework for Commonwealth agencies to use surveillance devices and for state and territory law enforcement agencies to use surveillance devices under the Commonwealth scheme for particular purposes, including investigation of a Commonwealth offence punishable by at least three years imprisonment.[20]

Under the LECC Act (NSW), misconduct by a law enforcement officer will include conduct that constitutes a criminal offence under NSW law or that of another jurisdiction.[21] Accordingly, there may be instances where the LECC would require a Commonwealth surveillance device warrant.

Section 6A of the SD Act provides definitions of ‘law enforcement agency’, ‘chief officer’, ‘law enforcement officer’ and ‘appropriate authorising officer’ for the purposes of the Act. Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 will repeal and replace item 20 in the table in subsection 6A(7) that lists those definitions for state and territory law enforcement agencies and related definitions. This will replace the PIC and associated definitions with the LECC and associated definitions. This will allow LECC officers to apply for surveillance device warrants under Part 2 of the SD Act and to use less intrusive surveillance devices without a warrant under Part 4, and allow certain senior officers of the LECC to issue emergency authorisations under Part 3 and tracking device authorisations under Part 4.

Transitional provisions

Division 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 contains provisions to facilitate a smooth transition to the LECC of investigations commenced by the PIC in terms of the application of the SD Act. For example, item 39 of Schedule 2 will allow a warrant issued to the PIC before that item commences and that was in force immediately before commencement, to be treated on or after commencement as if it had been issued to the LECC. Items 40 and 41 make similar provision in relation to authorisations and evidentiary certificates.

Other amendments

Updating references in other Acts

Part 4 of Schedule 1 will replace references to the PIC, its establishing legislation and its officers with references to the LECC, its establishing legislation and its officers in relevant provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Criminal Code (Cth), Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), Radiocommunications Act 1992 (Cth) and Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).

Transitional provisions

Part 5 of Schedule 1 sets out general transitional provisions relating to the replacement of the PIC and the Inspector of the PIC by the LECC and the Inspector of the LECC. It will also allow the Minister to make rules, by legislative instrument, prescribing matters of a transitional nature that relate to amendments or repeals in Schedule 1 of the Bill, or the replacement of the PIC by the LECC so far as it is relevant to an Act amended by that Schedule.

Transfer of information and things

Part 6 of Schedule 1 provides for the transfer of information obtained by the PIC under the TIA Act or SD Act and things obtained by the PIC under the Crimes Act, to be transferred to the LECC.

Schedule 2: IBAC-related amendments

Background

The IBAC commenced as Victoria’s specialised anti-corruption body in 2012.[22] It is responsible for preventing, identifying and investigating public sector corruption and police misconduct.[23]

Schedule 2 of the Bill will:

amend the Australian Postal Corporation Act to allow Australia Post employees to disclose information to the IBAC to assist IBAC investigations
amend the Criminal Code to apply defences to certain Commonwealth telecommunications offences to IBAC officers and
amend the SD Act to list the IBAC as a state and territory law enforcement agency, so it can apply for Commonwealth surveillance device warrants.

These changes are consistent with the treatment of other state anti-corruption agencies under those Acts.[24]

Australia Post information

Section 90J of the Australian Postal Corporation Act sets out the circumstances in which a current employee of Australia Post may use or disclose certain information or documents obtained in the course of his or her employment. Subsection 90J(6) allows an employee to disclose information or documents as required under certain state and territory laws establishing commissions that conduct investigations or inquiries. Item 1 of Schedule 2 will insert proposed paragraph 90J(6)(ba) to allow such disclosures to be made in accordance with the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic).

Item 2 of Schedule 2 will make an equivalent insertion into section 90LC, which applies to former employees of Australia Post.

Defence to telecommunications offences

Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code contains offences related to telecommunications services. Some of those offences are accompanied by defences whereby the offence does not apply if it is established that the person who engaged in the relevant conduct was a law enforcement officer acting in the course of his or her duties, and the conduct was reasonable in the context of performing that duty.[25] Item 4 of Schedule 2 will insert proposed paragraph (ia) into the definition of ‘law enforcement officer’ in section 473.1 of the Criminal Code so that it includes IBAC Officers within the meaning of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011 (Vic). This will make the relevant defences available to IBAC officers acting in the course of their duties.

Surveillance Devices

As noted in the analysis of Schedule 1 above, section 6A of the SD Act provides definitions of ‘law enforcement agency’, ‘chief officer’, ‘law enforcement officer’ and ‘appropriate authorising officer’ for the purposes of the Act. Item 5 of Schedule 2 will insert proposed item 22 into the table in subsection 6A(7) that lists those definitions for state and territory law enforcement agencies and related definitions. This will allow IBAC officers to apply for surveillance device warrants under Part 2 of the SD Act and to use less intrusive surveillance devices without a warrant under Part 4, and allow certain senior officers of the LECC to issue emergency authorisations under Part 3 and tracking device authorisations under Part 4.

Schedule 3: Proceeds of Crime Act amendments

Background

The PoC Act provides a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law. There are several mechanisms through which assets may be confiscated, including conviction-based (criminal forfeiture), non-conviction based (civil forfeiture), and unexplained wealth orders. The concept and interpretation of property or wealth having been ‘lawfully acquired’ is important to the functioning of the PoC Act.

Definition and interpretation of ‘lawfully acquired’

Section 336A of the PoC Act provides that for the purposes of the Act, property or wealth is ‘lawfully acquired’ only if both the property or wealth itself, and the consideration[26] given for the property or wealth, were lawfully acquired.[27]

The Explanatory Memorandum identifies the circumstances in which the matter of whether something was lawfully acquired becomes relevant in proceedings under the PoC Act:

Where property or wealth is ‘lawfully acquired’, this may be relied upon in resisting applications for unexplained wealth restraining orders (section 20A) and preliminary unexplained wealth orders (section 179B). A person may also point to the fact that property was ‘lawfully acquired’ in securing transfer orders (section 102) and exclusion from forfeiture orders under the Act (section 94).[28]

Section 94 of the PoC Act allows a person whose property is subject to a restraining order and will be automatically forfeited because the person has been convicted of a serious offence to which the restraining order relates, to apply to the court to have property excluded from forfeiture. The court must make an order excluding particular property from forfeiture if it is satisfied of certain matters, including that ‘the applicant’s interest in the property was lawfully acquired’.[29]

In Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Huang (Huang), the court considered an application under section 94 of the PoC Act to exclude certain property of Mr Ly.[30] The court considered that the source of funds used by Mr Ly to repay the loan he took out in 2005 to acquire a property was not relevant to whether that property was ‘lawfully acquired’ (despite the possibility that those funds were not lawfully acquired).[31]

Amendments

The Government considers that the interpretation of lawfully acquired in Huang is ‘contrary to the intended meaning and to the objects of the PoC Act’.[32] Accordingly, the amendments in Schedule 3 of the Bill are proposed to ‘clarify that, where illegitimate funds are used to discharge a legitimately obtained security (such as a mortgage), property or wealth obtained using this security is not considered “lawfully acquired”’.[33]

Item 1 of Schedule 3 will insert proposed paragraph 336A(c) to require a third matter to be satisfied before property or wealth meets the definition of lawfully acquired, specifically:

(c)    other property (discharging property) (if any) used in wholly or partly discharging a security on, or a liability incurred to acquire or retain:

        (i)     the property or wealth; or

        (ii)    the consideration given for the property or wealth; or

        (iii)   property (if any) that is discharging property because of one or more previous applications of this paragraph;

        was lawfully acquired.

Using the example of Huang, this new provision would have required the court, in order to exclude the property in question from being forfeited, to be satisfied that all of the funds used to pay the mortgage on the property were lawfully acquired.

As outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum, proposed subparagraph 336A(c)(iii) is included to require the court to follow the funds back to their original source, so the new paragraph cannot be evaded by individuals ‘layering’ liabilities or securities, which might include:

... for example, where unlawfully obtained funds are used to discharge a loan, and the money obtained from this loan is used to discharge the debts owed under a second loan, and the money gained from this second loan is used to purchase real property.[34]

Item 2 of Schedule 3 provides that the amendment made by item 1 will apply to property or wealth acquired before, on or after the commencement of Schedule 3 of the Bill. As set out above, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has asked the Minister to justify this approach.[35]

Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.

[1]. Parliament of New South Wales, ‘Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Bill 2016 homepage’, New South Wales Parliament website.

[2]. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, ‘Review of item 28 of the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016’, Inquiry homepage.

[3]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee), Alert digest, 8, 2016, The Senate, 9 November 2016, pp. 21–23.

[4]. Explanatory Memorandum, Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016, pp. 33–34.

[5]. Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert digest, 8, 2016, op. cit., p. 22.

[6]. Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills, Report, 8, 2016, The Senate, 10 November 2016.

[7]. Explanatory Memorandum, Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 4.

[8]. The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.

[9]. The Committee deferred its consideration of the Bill: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report, 8, 2016, The Senate, 9 November 2016, p. 93.

[10]. A Tink, Review of police oversight: a report to the New South Wales Government on options for a single civilian oversight model for police, NSW Department of Justice, Sydney, 31 August 2015, p. 5.

[11]. T Grant (NSW Minister for Justice and Police), New law enforcement watchdog for NSW, media release, 26 November 2015; Parliament of NSW, ‘Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Bill 2016 homepage’, NSW Parliament website.

[12]. Explanatory Note, Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Bill 2016 (NSW), p. 2.

[13]. Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Bill 2016 (NSW), Part 9 and Schedule 6.

[14]. Ibid., Schedules 4, 5 and 6.

[15]. TIA Act, subsection 5(1) (definitions of ‘agency’, ‘eligible authority’ and ‘interception agency’), section 34 (declaration of an eligible authority of a state as an agency) and section 110A (meaning of criminal law-enforcement agency). Declarations made under section 34 can be accessed from the ‘Enables’ tab of the TIA Act series on the Federal Register of Legislation.

[16]. Item 4 of Schedule 1 will amend the definition of ‘eligible authority’ in subsection 5(1) of the TIA Act.

[17]. Item 28 of Schedule 1 will amend the definition of ‘criminal law-enforcement agency’ in subsection 110A(1) of the TIA Act. Criminal law-enforcement agencies may apply for stored communications warrants.

[18]. As noted above, item 28 of Schedule 1 will amend the definition of ‘criminal law-enforcement agency’ in subsection 110A(1) of the TIA Act. Criminal law-enforcement agencies listed in subsection 110A(1) are enforcement agencies for the purposes of Division 4 of Part 4–1 of the TIA Act.

[19]. Items 30; 34; and 31–33, 35 and 36 of Schedule 1 respectively.

[20]. SD Act, sections 6 (definitions, including ‘relevant offence’) and 6A (definitions of law enforcement agency and law enforcement officer) and Part 2 (warrants).

[21]. Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Bill 2016 (NSW), proposed section 9 and proposed subsection 4(1) (definition of criminal offence).

[22]. Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC), Annual report 2012–13, IBAC, Melbourne, 2013, p. 12.

[23]. IBAC, ‘About us’, IBAC website.

[24]. SD Act, subsection 6A(7) (lists NSW, Queensland, Western Australian and South Australian anti-corruption agencies); Australian Postal Corporation Act, subsections 90J(6) and 90LC(5) (list NSW, Queensland and SA anti-corruption agencies and allows others to be prescribed); Criminal Code, section 473.1 (the definition of law enforcement officer includes officers from NSW, WA, Queensland and SA anti-corruption agencies).

[25]. Criminal Code, subsections 474.6(7), 474.7(3), 474.8(5), 474.9(5), 474.10(4), 474.11(5), 474.12(5), 474.21(3), and 474.24(3).

[26]. ‘Consideration’ is the price, detriment or forbearance given as value for a promise. Expressed in terms of benefit and detriment, a valuable consideration may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. Source: PJ Butt, Butterworths concise Australian legal dictionary, 3rd edition, LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney, 2004.

[27]. ‘Property’ is defined in section 338 of the PoC Act as meaning ‘real or personal property of every description, whether situated in *Australia or elsewhere and whether tangible or intangible, and includes an *interest in any such real or personal property’ (the asterisks indicate other defined terms).

[28]. Explanatory Memorandum, Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 32.

[29]. PoC Act, section 94 and paragraph 94(1)(f).

[30]. Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Huang [2016] WASC 5.

[31]. Ibid, [149]–[158].

[32]. Explanatory Memorandum, Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 3.

[33]. Ibid., p. 4.

[34]. Ibid., p. 33.

[35]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee), Alert digest, 8, 2016, op. cit., p. 22.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.