COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA JOINT COMMITTEE on THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Reference: Evaluation of the National Crime Authority BRISBANE Wednesday, 21 May 1997 OFFICIAL HANSARD REPORT CANBERRA JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Members: Mr Bradford (Chair) Senator Conroy Mr Filing Senator Ferris Mr Sercombe Senator Gibbs Mr Truss Senator McGauran Mrs West Senator Stott Despoja The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority has resolved that it will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the operations of the National Crime Authority. The committee will examine in particular: (1) the constitution, role, functions and powers of the authority, and the need for a body such as the authority, having regard to the activities of other Commonwealth and state law enforcement agencies; (2) the efficiency and effectiveness of the authority; (3) accountability and parliamentary supervision of the authority; and (4) the need for amendment of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. WITNESSES BEVAN, Mr David John, Deputy Director, Official Misconduct Division, Criminal Justice Commission, 557 Coronation Drive, Toowong, Queensland 4066 ........................................... 83 BOTTOM, Mr Robert ............................................ 18 CLAIR, Mr Francis Joseph, Chairperson, Criminal Justice Commission, 557 Coronation Drive, Toowong, Queensland 4066 ..................... 83 DEARDEN, Mr Ian Francis, President, Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, GPO Box 2281, Brisbane Queensland 4001 ................ 67 IRWIN, Mr Marshall Philip, Member, Bar Association of Queensland, Level 5, Inns of Court, 107 North Quay, Brisbane, Queensland 4000 ........... 3 McHUGH, Inspector Dominic Gerard, Staff Officer to Assistant Commissioner, State Crime Operations, Queensland Police Service, 100 Roma Street, Brisbane, Queensland ............................ 116 ROGER, Mr Paul, Director, Intelligence, Criminal Justice Commission, 557 Coronation Drive, Toowong, Queensland 4066 ..................... 83 RUTLEDGE, Mr Paul Francis, Consultant Crown Prosecutor, Office of Director of Public Prosecutions, GPO Box 2403, Brisbane, Queensland . 56 JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Evaluation of the National Crime Authority BRISBANE Wednesday, 21 May 1997 Present Mr Bradford (Chair) Senator Conroy Mr Filing Senator Ferris Senator Gibbs Senator McGauran The committee met at 9.04 a.m. Mr Bradford took the chair. 1 NCA 2 JOINT Wednesday, 21 May 1997 CHAIR—I declare open this public hearing into the evaluation of the National Crime Authority by the Joint Parliamentary Committee. I would like to make a few brief opening remarks. I am happy to make these opening remarks available to the press if they do not already have them. The committee is required by section 55 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 to monitor and review the performance by the authority of its functions. It has been performing this task for the past 13 years with mixed success. The committee last undertook a comprehensive evaluation of the authority in 1990-91, which led to the committee tabling a report in November 1991 entitled, Who is to guard the guards? The current committee was established in May last year in the new parliament and has since found the operations of the NCA to be even more embroiled in controversy than usual. In particular, Mr Justice Merkel in the Federal Court of Australia in June 1996, and Mr Justice Vincent in the Victorian Supreme Court in August 1996, made adverse findings which went very much to the heart of the NCA’s operations. While both cases are being appealed, and the outcomes of the appeals will go a long way towards clarifying the authority’s continuing statutory basis, the committee felt that in all the circumstances it was timely for it to conduct another comprehensive evaluation. The proposed legislative reforms of 1992, which had been intended to implement the committee’s 1991 findings, were laid aside by the then Attorney-General because of fundamental differences with the Senate. Now, some five years later, those reforms still remain to be implemented. Much has also happened in the interim, of course, with the reforms arising from the 1994 report on Commonwealth law enforcement arrangements and the budget cuts implemented by both the former and current governments. Today’s hearing is the first of a program of hearings which the committee proposes to conduct around Australia to get an in-depth feel for the issues and to hear what the experts in the community think that the NCA should be doing in the future. NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Wednesday, 21 May 1997 JOINT NCA 3 IRWIN, Mr Marshall Philip, Member, Bar Association of Queensland, Level 5, Inns of Court, 107 North Quay, Brisbane, Queensland 4000 CHAIR—Welcome. I thank Mr Irwin for making himself available despite the pressure I am sure he must have with his court commitments. Mr Irwin, before asking you to make an opening statement, I am required to state that, if during the hearing you consider that information you might wish to give or a comment requested by a committee member is of a confidential or private nature, you can make application for that information or comment to be given in camera and the committee will consider your application at that time. I understand that you want to make a statement and that, ultimately, members of the committee will have that statement. Mr Irwin—Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. The Bar Association has prepared a submission in written form for the purposes of this inquiry, and I will be able to make that submission available to you within the next few days. At this stage, I will just talk to and summarise the Bar Association’s submission. I will do that under the various terms of reference—firstly, in relation to the constitution, role, functions and powers of the authority and perhaps, more particularly, the need for the National Crime Authority. I preface these comments by saying that, in addressing these issues, the association has been conscious of the tension between civil liberties on the one hand and the need for effective law enforcement on the other. The association accepts that there is a delicate balance to be struck between those two competing interests. Having said that, the association supports the need for a body such as the National Crime Authority, subject to the existence of appropriate safeguards and also subject to it being properly accountable so that it is not able to abuse its powers. The association accepts that there is a growing threat of organised crime and official corruption and that those things do not stop at state borders and that, if that type of conduct is to be effectively dealt with, an organisation such as the authority is essential. Police services in Australia do not have immediate access to the multidisciplinary skills that are available to organisations like the National Crime Authority, and it is considered that they are unlikely to obtain the resources to enable them to have access to the full extent of those skills in the foreseeable future. In addition, traditional police services have enormous demands on them in meeting the everyday needs of the community. Furthermore, they do not have coercive powers. It does not consider that police services should have those coercive powers available to them; it considers that there is unlikely, particularly in the present climate in states such as Queensland—even 10 years after the Fitzgerald inquiry—and currently in New South Wales, to be any public support for the giving of such powers to police services. NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY NCA 4 JOINT Wednesday, 21 May 1997 It also considers that, while ad hoc royal commissions and commissions of inquiry can play a role, they necessarily have a finite existence and they are expensive to operate, whereas a permanent standing royal commission, which is one way of looking at what the National Crime Authority is, has an infrastructure which is readily available to commence investigations and hearings should there be an issue or an investigation requiring that. In addition, a permanent body is able to do so in a much more cost-effective manner than a royal commission. It is in those circumstances that the association accepts the need for a National Crime Authority in the investigation of relevant criminal activities, provided that that activity is multijurisdictional and it cannot effectively be examined and investigated by normal police methods and powers. The association, in its submission, recommends consideration of an amendment to the National Crime Authority Act to add to the definition of relevant criminal activity the requirements that the conduct be multijurisdictional and of a nature that cannot effectively be investigated by normal police methods and powers. Senator McGAURAN—Cannot or when it cannot? Mr Irwin—It would suggest that the authority would only have jurisdiction in relevant criminal activity if both of those criteria were met. Senator McGAURAN—That just about cuts it out completely. Most state jurisdictions can cover investigations. Mr Irwin—That is not really what the association is saying. Senator McGAURAN—It is not what you are saying; I am just trying to clarify what you are saying. Mr Irwin—What we are saying is that it has to relate to a matter that crosses state boundaries—if I did not make that clear—and also that it must not be able to be investigated by normal police methods and powers. That is really to say that coercive powers are necessary to properly and effectively investigate the matter. The association accepts that there are many cases where police officers simply using their normal powers of investigation, conducting records of interview and so forth, without the ability to compel information to be provided to them, are hamstrung from effectively investigating those sorts of activities. Senator McGAURAN—I just wanted clarification. Mr Irwin—I apologise if that was not made entirely clear. It is also considered that those are matters which should be taken into account by the Inter-Governmental Committee in deciding whether to grant a reference to the National Crime Authority.