4.1
This chapter provides an overview of some of the issues the committee discussed with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) during the committee's hearing on 6 December 2019. Topics covered include the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program, the National Criminal Intelligence System, the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special investigations) Bill 2019, and the Biometric Identification Services project.
National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program
4.2
The National Wastewater Program has been in operation since May 2016. The purpose of the program is to measure drug use in selected Australian communities, and thereby inform policy and operational responses to drug use problems. Raw data is collected by the University of Queensland and the University of South Australia, which is then analysed by the ACIC strategic intelligence team.
4.3
As at December 2019, eight wastewater analysis reports have been published (of a series of nine). All eight of the reports consistently show that alcohol and nicotine are the most consumed drugs in Australia, with methamphetamine the most consumed illicit drug.
4.4
During the 2017–18 period, the ACIC released three national wastewater analysis reports (the second, third and fourth reports). The second wastewater report was downloaded 1976 times, the third report 1200 times, and the fourth report 1755 times. Across the three reports, the program analysed between 37 and 54 wastewater treatment plants across Australia for between 12 and 14 substances and covered approximately 54.3 per cent of Australia's population each time (12.7 million people). Table 4.1 compares how population size, sample sites, drug types analysed, and jurisdictional participation have changed across the eight wastewater reports.
Table 4.1: Comparison of population, sites, drug types, and jurisdiction participation across wastewater reports
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Population covered by wastewater reports
|
58%
|
51%
|
61%
|
54%
|
54%
|
56%
|
54%
|
55%
|
|
No. of sites analysed
|
51
|
37
|
54
|
45
|
47
|
58
|
50
|
52
|
|
No. of drug types analysed
|
13
|
13
|
14
|
12
|
12
|
13
|
13
|
13
|
|
No. of participating jurisdictions (of eight)
|
8
|
6
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
8
|
|
New substance included
|
-
|
-
|
Heroin
|
-
|
-
|
Cannabis
|
-
|
-
|
Source: ACIC, National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program, Reports 1–8.
4.5
As mentioned in the committee's analysis of the ACIC 2016–17 Annual Report, the wastewater analysis program was intended to provide a national picture of drug use. However, the second wastewater report did not include samples from Tasmania and the Northern Territory as the operators of wastewater facilities declined to participate in the collection of wastewater samples. At the committee's public hearing in November 2018, the ACIC explained that the relevant authorities in Tasmania and the Northern Territory did not supply the required samples citing administrative and resourcing issues. Following contact from the ACIC regarding the benefits of a national wastewater program, both jurisdictions have since provided samples.
4.6
Following this, the ACIC decided it would identify replacement sites from participating jurisdictions to ensure that the national population is captured in the event that a jurisdiction decided not to participate in the future. As a result, the location of sites within and between jurisdictions can change over the life of the program.
4.7
The ACIC has continually reviewed the appropriateness of the sites and selected substances in consultation with the universities collecting the data and other stakeholders. By the second report, the universities had devised a method to distinguish between MDMA and MDA consumption in future reports. By the sixth report, cannabis had been included in the analysis as well. At the committee's public hearing on 6 December 2019, Mr Michael Phlean, Chief Executive Officer, ACIC, explained that cannabis had previously been excluded as there had been no empirically reliable way of measuring it.
4.8
The ACIC receives semi-regular requests from state and local government agencies and academic institutions to provide results of wastewater analysis to inform decision-making and operational activity as well as for comparison with other data sets. In a highlight for 2017–18, the results of the wastewater program were used to inform the locations of various operations as part of the National Anti-Gangs Squad which charged 117 people with 234 offences during a two-night operation targeting methylamphetamine trafficking in regional areas of Australia.
International comparison
4.9
The wastewater results allow analysis between jurisdictions, previous years, and international comparisons.
4.10
From an international perspective, the first report found that methylamphetamine consumption levels in Australia rank highly compared to countries in Europe where wastewater analysis is routinely conducted. In contrast, cocaine consumption is relatively low, while MDMA is close to the European average. Estimated tobacco consumption rates in Australia are low in comparison to parts of Europe and China. Similarly, alcohol intake is relatively low, being at the lower Mediterranean end of consumption in Europe.
4.11
The fifth report provides international consumption comparisons for a number of drugs monitored by the program. Of the 23 countries with comparable reported data, Australia ranked second highest after the USA—where only one site was tested—for total estimated stimulant consumption. When comparing individual drugs, Australia ranked highly for methylamphetamine consumption, with medium MDMA consumption and relatively low cocaine consumption.
Comparison of seizure data and wastewater results
4.12
At the committee's public hearing on 6 December 2019, Mr Phelan explained that for the first time the agency had overlayed the wastewater analysis results with drug seizure data to understand whether drug usage is impacted by large law enforcement drug seizures. The agency found that large seizures did, in fact, reduce drug usage, and not only in the state where the shipment was seized from but in other states as well:
Over an 18-month period, I think we chose seven seizures of crystal methamphetamine, so ice—over 500 kilos—and were able to show that, once those seizures were made at the border, either by the Australian Border Force or by the AFP, that one to two months later usage actually slipped down throughout the country. It shows two things: one, that law enforcement can affect the usage of the amount that is available on the street, and, two, that, just because a large shipment comes into New South Wales doesn't necessarily mean the drugs are going to be used in New South Wales. If a large shipment hits on the coast of Western Australia—over a tonne or something of ice—Perth can't consume that amount of ice in that period of time, according to wastewater. That is distributed across the country, and we've seen that.
4.13
On 28 October 2019, the wastewater program received an additional $4.8 million to fund a further four years of the program. The ACIC, in partnership with the University of Queensland and the University of South Australia, is expected to continue to deliver three reports a year to 2023.
Committee comment
4.14
The committee commends the ACIC on the results achieved from the wastewater program. The committee is pleased that the wastewater program has received additional funding. The program provides vital insights into the drug consumption across Australia and has directly helped operational and policy responses. The committee looks forward to monitoring the results and evolution of future wastewater analysis.
Biometric Identification Services project
4.15
The Biometric Identification Systems (BIS) was intended to enable a national facial recognition platform for law enforcement partners and an ability 'to match face and finger biometrics for individuals, across state and territory boundaries'. The BIS was slated to replace the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), which contains eight million fingerprint records.
4.16
CrimTrac awarded NEC Australia the contract to develop the project on 20 April 2016, just months before the merger of CrimTrac with the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) on 1 July 2016. The approved budget for the BIS project was $52 million, with $28.9 million funded from the special account and $23.1 million sourced from CrimTrac's own funds. In its 2016–17 Annual Report, the ACIC explained that the BIS would 'significantly enhance police and law enforcement capabilities regarding biometrics and demographic information'. However, after a series of delays, the ACIC cancelled the project in June 2018. The ACIC 2017—18 Annual Report stated that, '[t]he benefits of continuing the project did not outweigh the costs and risks for our agency and partner agencies'.
4.17
The ACIC commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to conduct a review of capability and project management gaps in June 2017. It found that 'the [BIS] program was yet to define a robust governance structure with roles and responsibilities across the project and that decision-making governance was unclear'.
4.18
The ACIC commissioned PwC to conduct a formal contract review in November 2017. The PwC review found that:
roles and responsibilities in the project team remained unclear;
lines of communication were unclear;
terms of reference for components of the governance framework did not exist;
there was no formal process for escalation of issues to the ACIC executive; and
the relationship between the BIS project team and ACIC Project Management Office was unclear and had not been defined.
4.19
In November 2018, Mr Phelan explained that, due to delays with the BIS, the contract with IDEMIA (the company contracted to provide the NAFIS) had to be extended twice to enable overlap between moving from the IDEMIA system to the BIS program. The cost escalated from approximately $6 million to $9 million per annum. According to Mr Phelan, the increased costs were to maintain the IDEMIA system and were a product of the delay of the BIS. The NAFIS contract is due to expire in May 2020.
4.20
The ANAO released an audit report on the ACIC's administration of the BIS Project in January 2019. It found that the total expenditure on the project was $34 million, and that none of the project's milestones or deliverables were met. The ANAO identified significant deficiencies with the administration of the BIS project, and concluded that:
While CrimTrac’s management of the BIS procurement process was largely effective, the subsequent administration of the BIS project by CrimTrac and ACIC was deficient in almost every significant respect … ztwo critical requirements were overlooked in the requirements gathering phase and the approach to negotiating and entering the contract did not effectively support achievement of outcomes. This was a result of the contract not explaining the milestones and performance requirements in a manner that was readily understood and applied. ACIC did not effectively manage the BIS project with its approach characterised by: poor risk management; not following at any point the mandated process in the contract for assessing progress against milestones and linking their achievement to payments; reporting arrangements not driving action; non adherence to a detailed implementation plan; and inadequate financial management…
4.21
The ANAO found that the ACIC's financial management of the BIS project was poor; the ACIC's 'corporate finance area had no responsibility for management of the financial aspects of the BIS project', the BIS project team did not have a dedicated financial or contract manager, and the ACIC was 'unable to advise definitively how much they had spent on the project'.
4.22
The ANAO proposed report was provided to the ACIC for feedback. The ACIC provided the ANAO with a document entitled Biometrics Identification Services — Lessons Learnt. The document draws together the outcomes of sessions that were held with staff who were involved in the BIS project and a separate one-day workshop comprising some members of the ACIC executive and representatives of each of the state and territory police forces. The document includes 27 key lessons together with recommendations which could be used to improve the processes and outcomes of future agency projects.
4.23
A potential 2019–20 ANAO audit to examine the effectiveness of management of major multi-year ICT technology projects by selected entities has been flagged. The audit had not yet identified which agencies would be examined.
4.24
The ACIC 2016–17 Annual Report noted that a need to review the ACIC's delivery of information and intelligence systems and project management became clear following the merger of the ACC and CrimTrac in July 2016. An external contractor, Ernst & Young, was engaged by the ACIC to review its project management practices. The review cost $192 500 and identified seven recommendations to improve delivery capability. The review, its recommendations, and implementation of recommendations occurred over the same period of time as the BIS project. Indeed, the content of the recommendations largely relate to developing and implementing an improved project management framework, including ensuring effective senior executive oversight, defined governance roles and appropriate staffing. These issues were raised by the ANAO and the PwC.
4.25
At the 6 December 2019 public hearing, Mr Phelan advised the committee that all recommendations arising from all reviews relating to the ACIC's project management had been implemented by the agency. Mr Phelan explained that a Project Management Office had been set up to provide monthly progress reports on all IT or operations programs and allows early identification of issues and executive intervention through a 'traffic light' system. An organisational restructure, Mr Phelan explained, has also provided the CEO with additional assurance and line of sight. Mr Phelan assured the committee that he was personally involved in the oversight of current projects to ensure they remain on time and on budget.
Committee comment
4.26
As mentioned in the committee's 2016–17 report, the BIS project was poorly scoped and managed and represents a significant financial loss to the Commonwealth. However, the committee acknowledges that the ACIC took steps to identify shortcomings in the program and its practices and has implemented all of the recommendations arising from reviews. The committee looks forward to monitoring the results of improvements to the ACIC's processes and structure.