Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 1
Introduction
Terms of reference
1.1
On 14 May 2009 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian
Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (the committee) initiated an inquiry
into the operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (LEIC
Act) and its regulations, pursuant to the committee's duties set out in
subsection 215(1)(d) of the LEIC Act.
1.2
In particular, the committee resolved to examine and report on:
(a) Provisions for the extension of the Australian Commission for Law
Enforcement Integrity's (ACLEI) jurisdiction including but not limited to:
(i) The merits or limits of extending ACLEI's jurisdiction to other
Commonwealth departments and agencies with a law enforcement function and/or
coercive powers;
(ii) an examination of the definition of 'law enforcement function' within
the Act (section 5), including identification of the agencies to whom this
definition applies;
(iii) the administrative and operational practicalities of restricting the
Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction to matters pertaining to an agency's law
enforcement function;
(iv) the merits or limits of extending jurisdiction to other agencies by
means of regulation or legislation; and
(v) the expansion of the Integrity Commissioner's anti-corruption education
and prevention role to all Commonwealth departments and agencies.
(b) administrative, policy, legislative and case law developments
that may affect ACLEI's practices and/or legislation;
(c) the adequacy of ACLEI's reporting requirements with respect to
performance and to investigation outcomes as set out in the Act and associated
regulations;
(d) the strengths and the limits of the LEIC Act and regulations, and
of other arrangements arising from the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner
(Consequential Amendments) Act 2006; and
(e) the resources required to perform the functions set out in the
LEIC Act and, in particular, the resourcing implications of any extension of
ACLEI's jurisdiction.
1.3
The terms of reference were drafted with reference to two main
objectives:
- to fulfil legislative requirements that a review of the LEIC Act
be undertaken; and
- to give consideration to the expansion of ACLEI jurisdiction to
other Commonwealth bodies with a law enforcement function.
Review of the LEIC Act
1.4
Section 223A of the LEIC Act requires that a review of the first three
years of the operation of the Act be undertaken.
The possible expansion of ACLEI's jurisdiction
1.5
In February 2009, the committee reported on its inquiry into law
enforcement integrity models. The terms of reference for the inquiry required
the committee to examine the various Australian state-based law enforcement
integrity agencies in order to inform possible changes to the governance
structure and operational processes of ACLEI to enhance its current operation
and support the potential extension of ACLEI oversight to other Commonwealth
agencies with a law enforcement function. Following completion of that inquiry,
the committee resolved to turn its attention to the question of ACLEI's
jurisdiction.
1.6
ACLEI currently has jurisdiction over the Australian Federal Police
(AFP), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and the former National Crime
Authority (NCA). In addition, as a result of the Australian Government's
acceptance of a recommendation in the committee's interim report for this
inquiry, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) was
added to ACLEI's jurisdiction from January 2011. Other Commonwealth agencies
are able to be brought under ACLEI's jurisdiction by regulation.
Two-stage reporting process
1.7
On 19 November 2009 the committee agreed to a two-staged reporting
process and tabled an interim report in February 2010. The interim report enabled
the committee to present findings of a more urgent nature, whilst allowing
additional time for the committee to examine broader issues concerning the
Commonwealth integrity system.
1.8
The interim report focused attention on the following two areas:
- the first part of a staged extension of ACLEI's jurisdiction;
specifically, the proposal to bring Customs within the purview of ACLEI; and
- proposed amendments to the LEIC Act to enhance its operation.
1.9
This report is the final report for the committee's inquiry. It
addresses the following matters:
- a further extension to ACLEI's jurisdiction and the basis on
which to determine the agencies that should be subject to the oversight of
ACLEI;
- additional proposed amendments to the LEIC Act 2006; and
- the Commonwealth integrity framework, including gaps, areas of
overlap, and possible measures for improvement.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.10
The committee advertised the inquiry in The Australian newspaper
and on the committee's website. In addition, the committee wrote to a number of
organisations inviting submissions.
1.11
The committee received a total of 24 submissions, 21 of which are
published on the committee's website. Three submissions were received as
confidential submissions. A list of submissions is contained at Appendix 1.
1.12
In addition, the committee held public hearings in Canberra on
14 August 2009, 23 October 2009 and 4 February 2010, and in
Brisbane on 16 October 2009. Following the tabling of the interim report, the
committee held further hearings in Canberra on 27 May 2010.
1.13
Following the 2010 Federal Election, the newly appointed committee
re-adopted the terms of reference. Further hearings were held in Canberra on 11
February 2011 and 21 March 2011. The witnesses who appeared before the committee
are listed in Appendix 2.
Structure of the report
1.14
This chapter provides a brief background to the inquiry.
1.15
Chapter 2 considers ACLEI's proposed 'tiered model for jurisdiction',
which operates on the basis that the degree of oversight placed on an agency
should be commensurate with the level of corruption risk.
1.16
Chapter 3 gives consideration to ACLEI and its relationship with other
agencies in the integrity and accountability sphere. This chapter also
discusses the broader Commonwealth integrity system and possible measures for
strengthening integrity arrangements at the Commonwealth level.
Acknowledgements
The committee wishes to express its appreciation to all parties
who contributed to the conduct of this inquiry, whether by making a written
submission, by attending a public hearing or, as in many cases, by making both
written and oral submissions.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|