Bills Digest no. 38,
2016–17
PDF version [605KB]
Cat Barker
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section
17 November 2016
Contents
Purpose and structure of the Bill
Commencement
Background
Committee consideration
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.
© Commonwealth of Australia
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.