Police Integrity Commission Amendment (Crime Commission) Bill 2008

Debate resumed from 18 June 2008.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [4.13 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on the Police Integrity Commission Amendment (Crime Commission) Bill 2008. The bill amends the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 to enable the Police Integrity Commission, known as the PIC, to investigate and otherwise deal with the misconduct of officers of the New South Wales Crime Commission. It is notable that the bill extends to conduct occurring before the Act commences, including that of former officers. Under changes proposed by the bill, certain public officials, including the Commissioner of the New South Wales Crime Commission and the Commissioner of Police, will have a duty to report any suspected misconduct to the Police Integrity Commission. In addition, the bill provides that the referral of matters by the Police Integrity Commission to the Crime Commission concerning Crime Commission officers will be subject to the same reporting requirements as currently apply to matters that are referred by the Police Integrity Commission to the police.

There will be an extension of existing provisions concerning the functions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] and the Police Integrity Commission when other public officials are involved so that the provisions apply in relation to Crime Commission officers in the same way as they currently apply in relation to police officers. The bill provides for the Police Integrity Commission and the ICAC to enter into arrangements for dealing with the misconduct of Crime Commission officers. It is important for the House to note that such arrangements may already be entered into regarding the conduct of members of the New South Wales Police Force. There is a provision in the bill that the crime commissioner is not under a duty to report to the ICAC any matter that concerns the misconduct of a Crime Commission officer unless the commissioner suspects that the matter also concerns the corrupt conduct of another public official. This measure is in addition to limitations on the function of the ICAC in relation to the conduct of Crime Commission officers. These limits operate in the same manner as its functions that are currently limited in relation to police force members.

At present, no oversight body is charged with reviewing the Crime Commission. The only parliamentary committee that has any function in reviewing its operations is General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 during its budget estimates process in the police portfolio. Such a circumstance is clearly unacceptable. On 2 June 2008 the Assistant Director, Investigations at the New South Wales Crime Commission was arrested over his alleged involvement in a conspiracy to import 600 kilograms of chemicals with the potential to make $120 million worth of ice. Following this news the Coalition acted swiftly—unlike this dithering Government—and called for an independent royal commission into the Crime Commission. A royal commission is needed to ensure that the confidentiality of ongoing investigations is maintained while balancing the need to address public concerns regarding accountability through a thorough examination of the culture of secrecy within the organisation.

On 3 June 2008 the Government referred the case to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for consideration. The next day the Daily Telegraph blasted across its front page the news that the officer's current partner was working at the ICAC. On 5 June, following Coalition, media and public pressure relating to the unaccountability of the Crime Commission, the Government finally announced that it would install the Police Integrity Commission as the oversight body of the New South Wales Crime Commission. In reply, the Coalition reiterated its concerns, saying that greater oversight of the Crime Commission must come from an independent body, not the Police Integrity Commission. The numerous joint investigations undertaken by these two bodies are of concern. At the same time I said that a new independent inspector general heading a body with the powers of a royal commission would be the only way to ensure that all the evidence could be heard and investigated properly. I stand by that belief in the House today.

The Wood royal commission was established in May 1994 to invest corruption in the New South Wales Police Service, now the Police Force. As part of its operations the commission employed no current or former New South Wales police officer in order to maintain its independence from the police. As the extent of systemic corruption was uncovered during the investigations a call was made for a permanent independent investigative body to be established. As a result the Police Integrity Commission was established on 1 January 1997. It is of the utmost importance that public confidence in the Crime Commission is maintained to ensure its effectiveness in targeting organised crime into the future.

As has been pointed out by the New South Wales Police Association and the Coalition, there has been a longstanding working relationship between the PIC and the Crime Commission, and indeed the ICAC. The public perception of the independence of the PIC in investigations into the Crime Commission would be undermined by these relationships. For a number of years the Police Association has called on the New South Wales Government to establish a standing oversight body. Unfortunately, as with many calls, they have fallen on deaf ears. In response to the proposal before the House the association has stated:

The Government's announcement that the Police Integrity Commission will assume this (oversight) role needs careful consideration given the history of joint operations between the two bodies. The acceptability of this arrangement will need to be viewed in the light of more detail as to how this would operate in practice.

The Police Association went further, stating:

The Crime Commission have been granted extraordinary powers which are critical to their role in investigating organised crime. These powers go far beyond those entrusted to police and accordingly it is even more critical that the Crime Commission should, as a matter of public policy, be subject to a standing oversight body to ensure those powers are not abused and they too are held accountable for their actions.

They are not my words, nor are they the words of my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, Mike Gallacher; they are the words of the New South Wales Police Association. The Government should heed the message. The Coalition will oppose this bill, which is nothing more than window dressing. In order to restore the public's faith in our police oversight committees it is essential that the Government finally institute a royal commission. The time for dithering is over; it is finally time for the Government to act. The Premier and the Minister for Police need to show some leadership and institute a royal commission into the Crime Commission. The commissioner of the Crime Commission is a friend of mine and I mean no aspersion to him, but it is clear that something rotten has occurred in the Crime Commission for some time.

Whilst guilt or innocence still has to be established, that something rotten may well be the cause of recent investigations as to whether major criminals were released early because of representations made by the charged officer. He occupied a senior position and had access to other major investigations across Australia through national meetings being held from time to time through the Australian Crime Commission. The risks that are faced to law enforcement by a corrupt officer in the Crime Commission, particularly a very senior one, are enormous. The Opposition believes that a royal commission is needed to ascertain the extent of the infiltration of the Crimes Commission. For example, have Victorian police investigations been compromised? Checks were being made. Have criminal investigations in Queensland and South Australia been compromised? The Police Integrity Commission does not have the jurisdiction to investigate matters involving other States, and that is why a royal commission is needed. Indeed, we need a national royal commission such as the Stewart royal commission into drug trafficking. That is the sort of reaction needed for such a crisis; the issue should not be shunted off to another secretive body run by this State.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.24 p.m.]: I support the Police Integrity Commission (Crimes Commission) Bill, which represents a major reform to the accountability and transparency of our key law enforcement agencies. The Police Integrity Commission [PIC] is like an ongoing royal commission. The PIC has the powers to investigate matters and to call and question witnesses. It has the power to summons to give evidence and compel witnesses to provide documents. It is an offence to not comply, and can lead to arrest. It is an offence to knowingly give false or misleading testimony and not to answer questions at the commission. People can also be held in contempt of the commission as if it were a court. I briefly refer to the proposed amendments.

Schedule 1 sets out the proposed amendments to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996. They include amending the definitions of the Act to include officers of the New South Wales Crime Commission, and including a definition of "misconduct" of a Crime Commission officer. It should be noted that those definitions capture the activities of former Crime Commission officers. Sections 13B and 13C will be inserted to give the Police Integrity Commission the power to oversee the New South Wales Crime Commission, and the authority to allocate dedicated staff, including an assistant commissioner to work on Crime Commission matters. As I noted earlier, this Government is committed to providing extra resources to the Police Integrity Commission to undertake those additional duties.

Section 19 of the Police Integrity Commission Act is to be amended to allow the PIC to not be required to consult with the New South Wales Crime Commission if it intends to use the provisions of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 in relation to an investigation affecting the Crime Commission. Amendments to section 61 will also be made to ensure that the current secrecy provisions of the New South Wales Crime Commission Act do not impede a PIC investigation into the Crime Commission. A new part, to be called part 4B, will be inserted into the Police Integrity Commission Act providing for complaints to be made against Crime Commission officers. This part will allow the PIC to refer complaints about the Crime Commission back to the commission itself for resolution if the complaints are minor in nature. The part will also allow the Police Integrity Commission to take action and report to the Minister and Parliament if it is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Crime Commission has dealt with a complaint.

Section 99 of the Police Integrity Commission Act is to be amended to ensure that the Police Integrity Commission reports separately on its activities in overseeing the New South Wales Crime Commission. A note will be inserted after section 130 to make it clear that the Police Integrity Commission can investigate the Management Committee of the New South Wales Crime Commission. Other provisions provide for arrangements to be made between the PIC and the Independent Commission Against Corruption about investigations of matters where there may be some overlap in jurisdictions. In particular, transitional provisions are made to ensure that existing matters about the Crime Commission that are being dealt with by the Independent Commission Against Corruption will continue unaffected by this bill. Provision has also been made to ensure that any matter arising out of the existing investigations may be referred in future to the PIC by the Independent Commission Against Corruption if it thinks it is necessary. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [4.28 p.m.]: It was interesting to hear the member for Parramatta talk about accountability and transparency, but we did not hear those words and arguments being put forward when the Opposition and the Police Association called for accountability in relation to the Crimes Commission over the years. The Crimes Commission has been in operation for more than a decade and the calls by the Police Association for an oversight body were firmly rejected by the Government. It has now come about because of the arrest of Mark Standen and the consequences following from that. Even in the Minister's agreement in principle speech to the bill he spoke about the confidence of the public being shaken because of that high-profile arrest. Of course it would be shaken.

The reports in today's Daily Telegraph would further cause public concern and underline the need for the body to have a degree of accountability. This need for accountability did not suddenly arise in the past few weeks. As I said, this body has existed for years. The Government's has resisted the Police Association's legitimate calls for accountability but they are at last being recognised in this legislation, although not in a form that will be effective. I repeat what the member for Epping said: The Crime Commission has been granted extraordinary powers which are critical to their role investigating organised crime. These powers go beyond those entrusted to police and accordingly it is even more critical that the Crime Commission should as a matter of public policy be subject to a standing oversight body to ensure those powers are not abused and they too are held accountable for their actions.

Those words applied when this body was created. There was an application in principle in terms of the words laid down by the Police Association at that time. As I say, there has been resistance on the part of the Government. The shadow Minister has outlined the Opposition's position in regard to this. There is also the critical role of the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission. That is an important component of accountability. The Minister in reply should say whether he believes the Inspector has all the powers he requires to carry out his role effectively.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [4.31 p.m.]: I want to make a brief contribution on this bill. The Independent Commission Against Corruption is the current oversight body of the New South Wales Crime Commission, however its powers are limited to the investigation and prevention of potential corruption only. The Minister for Police announced recently that the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] will take over the oversight role for the New South Wales Crime Commission. Transferring the oversight role to the Police Integrity Commission will increase the scrutiny to which the commission is as the Police Integrity Commission can investigate serious misconduct in addition to corruption.

The Police Integrity Commission has the powers of a standing royal commission and has over a decade of experience in detecting serious misconduct and corruption in a law enforcement environment. The Police Integrity Commission itself is oversighted by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission. Bringing the Crime Commission under the mandate of the Police Integrity Commission will ensure that all major New South Wales law enforcement agencies are oversighted by one body. The bill will amend the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996 to give the Police Integrity Commission the power to detect, investigate and prevent serious misconduct and corruption within the New South Wales Crime Commission. In effect, the bill will give the Police Integrity Commission the equivalent level of oversight of the New South Wales Crime Commission that it has over officers of the New South Wales Police Force.

As we all know, the police enjoy unique and special powers in the furtherance of their duties. We must have special organisations set up to combat crime effectively because criminals do not play by the rules. However, the public must have confidence that organisations such as the Crime Commission are carrying out their very important duties lawfully and without corruption. We know that these officers work in a very difficult environment that can often present temptations and that they have to meet very high standards. It is very important that there is an organisation overseeing their doing this important work to make sure that if problems arise they are located and dealt with. This bill, which gives the Police Integrity Commission oversight, will give the public confidence that this organisation has proper accountability.

Despite what the Opposition has said in its ridiculous attacks, the Police Integrity Commission is not a secret police club. The Police Integrity Commission in fact reports directly to the Parliament and does not report to or need to consult the Minister for Police or any other agency. By necessity there are of course occasions when the Police Integrity Commission must conduct operations in secret. That is an important part of their job, but it in no way lessens their accountability. It should be remembered that the Police Integrity Commission is oversighted by a joint parliamentary committee, that it is accountable, and that it also has an independent inspector. I think the changes in this bill will provide the accountability that is needed and will give confidence to the public. It is an important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Police, and Minister for the Illawarra) [4.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank members who have spoken in this debate, particularly the member for Wyong and my colleague and Parliamentary Secretary for Police the member for Parramatta, who I think made very thoughtful and competent contributions. I will refer to some rather sad comments by the member for Cronulla. He said the Crime Commission had existed for about 10 years. It is actually closer to 25 years. The Crime Commission was established by a former Labor Government and continued to operate with its special, important and quite strong powers under a Coalition Government. It does so under a Labor Government today with the confidence of this Government in its aim and responsibility to track down complex criminal cases and the cartels who are involved in activities such as money laundering, prostitution and drug importation, manufacture and supply. It is important to point out that a Coalition Government in the past has strongly supported and maintained the Crime Commission and its special powers. That was notably missing from the very poor contribution of the member for Cronulla who thought the commission had been around for about 10 years. Maybe he missed a few years on the way through.

In my view the Police Integrity Commission inspector has the power and authority to do the task that will be required when this bill becomes law after it passes both Houses of the Parliament. I noted the member for Epping's contribution in which he restated the Opposition's calls that are now almost a month old—certainly three weeks old—for a royal commission. As we have heard from the members for Parramatta and Wyong, and as I made very clear in my agreement in principle contribution to this debate, the Police Integrity Commission has the powers of a royal commission. It is a message that the Opposition has a great deal of difficulty in understanding, probably because it is such a simple message. The Police Integrity Commission has the powers of a standing royal commission. Even if a royal commission were established by the New South Wales Government to consider this matter, it would not explore the areas where the member for Epping tried to go. A royal commission established in this State would not have authority in other States.

Because of the uniqueness of the New South Wales Crime Commission it does not have joint operations—as I understand it and am advised—with police forces in other States. It does joint operations with the Australian Federal Police, as has been noted and as I have made clear to the Parliament and to the community. The incident that has led to this debate—the arrest and allegations made against Mr Standen—are the result of a joint operation between the Australian Federal Police and the New South Wales Crime Commission. The Australian Federal Police have made it very clear that that operation could not have been brought to the point that it has without the cooperation of the New South Wales Crime Commission, something that seems to elude the Opposition absolutely.

What we hear from the Opposition is a proposal for a royal commission, which is something we are pretty used to. In question time every day the Leader of the Opposition says, "We are going to send this to the Independent Commission Against Corruption" and "We're going to send this to the police". They are always calling for an inquiry but their policies do not contain any alternatives. They have not enunciated in this debate an alternate mechanism for improving the oversight of the New South Wales Crime Commission. That is what the Government is doing. The Government is moving to a model where the Police Integrity Commission, a standing royal commission, would have responsibility to consider allegations of corruption and serious misconduct against the New South Wales Crime Commission, which is an important change in the existing arrangement. It is a similar structure that applies to the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police where there is one oversight body, and that is another important point to draw in this debate.

The most significant point to make in reply is that the Opposition whinges, complains, moans and goes on, but it does not have alternative policy positions. The Government has a strong position, which seeks to make more contemporary and current the oversight arrangements of the New South Wales Crime Commission by giving the Police Integrity Commission authority and, by implication and certainly by commission, giving the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission further oversight of the Police Integrity Commission's work in relation to the New South Wales Crime Commission. This is important and appropriate legislation and I urge the New South Wales Opposition to put aside their manic want for inquiries of one form or another and, for once, come up with a policy position. In fact I challenge them to support the policy position that the Government is putting forward with this particular bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.