CHAPTER 2
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S PORTFOLIO
2.1
This chapter summarises some of the matters raised during the
committee's consideration of the additional estimates for the
Attorney-General's Portfolio for the 2012-13 financial year.
Australian Crime Commission
2.2
The Australian Crime Commission's (ACC) recent report on organised crime
and drugs in sport, as well as the ACC's involvement in the press conference
given by the Hon Jason Clare, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for
Justice, and the
Hon Kate Lundy, Minister for Sport, on 7 February 2013, was the subject of
extensive questioning by the committee. The Chief Executive Officer of the ACC,
Mr John Lawler AM APM, advised that attendance at the press conference was in
accordance with due process and past practices of the commission. Mr Lawler
informed the committee that the investigation, called Project Aperio, started
with work related to the issue of 'serious and organised crime penetration of
professional sport' in 2011.[1]
2.3
Mr Lawler explained that, although the ACC's report does not contain
specifics of particular instances of widespread misuse of drugs by professional
athletes in Australia, those details are contained in the classified report,
which has been widely circulated to the relevant authorities.[2] Mr Lawler
informed the committee that those authorities include the Australian Sports
Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), which is the lead agency in relation to breaches
of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) activities.[3]
2.4
Mr Lawler also updated the committee on the implications for staffing of
the funding reduction of the ACC.[4]
2.5
With respect to whether there were some crime-fighting activities which
the ACC is not able to engage in due to its reduced staffing levels, Mr Lawler
advised:
[I]n relation to the organised crime threats and the issues
of crime more broadly in the community there is in actual fact more crime and
more criminality than all the resources combined in the country can deal with.
Agencies have to constantly prioritise where those resources are best deployed,
and that is an exercise of judgement and indeed that is part of my
responsibility, along with the board of the [ACC], which has a statutory
function to set the priorities and indeed set the strategic direction for the
commission and its work in targeting the very highest threat to criminal
activities that we face.
So, the commission is no different to any other agency. Yes,
there are crimes that the commission cannot tackle that it could tackle if
there were more resources available. But I can assure this committee and the
Australian public that with the resources we have, and with the support of the
board, we have those resources focused on the highest threats and we are making
significant inroads into the organised crime threat in this country.[5]
Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
2.6
Representatives from the Family Court of Australia (FCA) and the Federal
Magistrates Court of Australia (FMC) were questioned extensively on the
impending merger of the executive and administrative functions of those courts.[6]
2.7
The committee also asked questions about why the funding allocation to
the FCA and the FMC differed from the budget figure. A representative of the
courts informed the committee:
That allocation in many ways is simply formula based.
Essentially, if you are looking at the two courts' budgets, the Family Court's
budget is significantly larger than the Magistrates Court budget. Part of the
reason is that the Family Court, by and large, pays for the large bulk of the properties
that are occupied by both the FMC and the Family Court. It employs the bulk of
the registry staff that provide the registry services and also a large portion
of the registrars and consultants. So a significant component of the budget is
actually a shared budget, so those resources are providing services across both
courts. So, on the face of it, yes, it looks like the Family Court is getting a
huge amount of funding compared with the [FMC].[7]
2.8
Mr Richard Foster PSM, Chief Executive Officer of the FCA and
Acting Chief Executive Officer of the FMC, also explained the funding
allocation in the context of the merger of the two courts:
...I
think it is important to understand that the Family Court provides nearly $30
million worth of services to the FMC free of charge. So one of the sound
outcomes, I think, about the restructure of the administration of the courts is
that the agency has one budget, and that is split up more easily between the
two courts. So, assuming this legislation goes through, we will be able to say
exactly what each court costs to run, although the money will be in the agency.[8]
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
2.9
The committee questioned the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC) as to why it has taken a long period of time to initiate
Australia's membership of the Open Government Partnership, following an
invitation from the US State Department to join in August 2011 and the then
Attorney-General's express support in May 2012.[9]
Professor McMillan, the Australian Information Commissioner, advised the
committee that it was a case of 'competing priorities' and workload:
[T]he short answer is that there have been competing
priorities, certainly in my office, and I expect there would be a similar
consideration in, say, the Attorney-General's Department or in other
departments. If I can just explain my part. I received a letter from the
Attorney-General's Department in
mid-August 2012 asking me to advise on what steps my office could take to
assist the Australian government to join the Open Government Partnership. It
took me five months to reply with the letter that you referred to that was
recently released under the FOI Act and placed on our and another website. The
only explanation, I think, is that there were quite a number of other competing
priorities in the office at the time.[10]
2.10
The committee heard that, to date, although the previous
Attorney-General has provided express support, Australia has not joined the
Open Government Partnership, as no official decision has been made by the
government. In response to a question about whether the OAIC anticipates
'receiving additional staff and resources to help drive whatever level of
involvement the government decides to bring forward for the [Open Government
Partnership]',[11]
Professor McMillan informed the committee that 'without some supplementary
funding or assistance', the OAIC could not 'see any way forward for [it] to
take on extra work'.[12]
2.11
Upon questioning as to whether there has been a response to the US
Secretary of State's invitation to join the Open Government Partnership, a
representative from the Attorney-General's Department (AGD), which is the lead
agency in relation to this issue, informed the committee that it has not
responded.[13]
2.12
An AGD representative also advised that it would be briefing the new
Attorney-General about the Open Government Partnership.[14]
Attorney-General's Department
2.13
A number of issues were raised with AGD, including: the Optional
Protocol to the Convention Against Torture; the Native Title Respondent Funding
Scheme; and the issue of justice reinvestment.
Optional Protocol to the Convention
Against Torture
2.14
AGD officials provided an update on the progress of the department's
work with states and territories to develop model legislation in relation to
the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, (OPCAT). The committee
was informed that a draft of the model legislation has been developed under the
auspices of New South Wales as they are taking the lead in its drafting.
2.15
In response to questions as to the detail of the draft model
legislation, a representative from AGD advised:
I do not have the detail with me but, essentially, the
arrangements are necessary to both establish the national preventative
mechanism, and the legislation would also govern visits by the international
body. The legislation could also be supported by MOUs or agreements between
ministers to facilitate those visits as well. It sets up the regime under which
the OPCAT would be introduced in every jurisdiction.[15]
2.16
In relation to the delay in implementing the OPCAT treaty Australia
signed in 2009, the representative explained:
It is the complexity of implementing a treaty of this nature
in a federal context. I should say that [I] do not think the delay can necessarily
be perceived as a problem in [the] sense that there has been a lot of work
amongst jurisdictions to get the system right in a way that every jurisdiction
is satisfied with, and that takes time as well.[16]
2.17
The AGD representative explained that the Commonwealth's intention is to
'continue to work with the states and territories to achieve agreement about
how [OPCAT] should be implemented'.[17]
Native Title Respondent Funding
Scheme
2.18
The AGD was questioned on changes to the Native Title Respondent Funding
Scheme. Officers confirmed those changes had reduced funding to respondents in
native title claims but clarified that the pool of funding is not disaggregated
from the larger funding pool for financial assistance schemes:
Mr
Fredericks:
The financial assistance for the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme is in
an appropriation which picks up funding for all legal financial assistance
programs. I can tell you the reduction in the level of funding across all of
those financial assistance schemes.
Senator
BRANDIS: No, I want to know the reduction in that part of that
funding which is attributable to the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme.
...
Mr
Fredericks:
...I can give you a three-year figure. In the financial year 2010-11, expenditure
on the Native Title Respondent Funding Scheme was $2.815 million. In the
financial year 2011-12, it was $2.749 million. For the financial year 2012-13,
the year to date figure is $1.299 million. That is actual expenditure, because,
as I say, there is not an individual appropriation for that scheme on its own.[18]
Justice reinvestment
2.19
In response to questions concerning the area of justice reinvestment,
AGD representatives informed the committee that the National Justice Chief
Executive Officers Working Group on Justice Reinvestment or Causes of Crime
(NJCEOs) is active and has produced a report related to the topic areas of
justice reinvestment and causes of crime. The Secretary indicated that the
report could be made available to the committee, subject to approval from all
states and territories.[19]
2.20
Another area of focus by the NJCEOs is improving data collection:
One of the other things that the group is focused on is
efforts around improved data collection to better inform justice reinvestment
approaches. Often the difficulty we have is that the data is not collected in a
way that gives you the ability to make informed judgements, so the NJCEOs have
requested the National Corrective Services Statistics Unit board consider
specific improvements to the currently available national data prisoner set to
give us a better idea of effectively why people are in prison.
On 19 April [2012] the board agreed to include this request in its upcoming
review of the National Corrective Services quarterly data set. That review is
currently being undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in
consultation with all agencies with an interest in improving data. A key issue
that the department raised during those consultations was the fact that the
quarterly national corrections data collection does not currently identify
offence type, which is one of the barriers to accurately identifying the key
drivers of incarceration generally and Indigenous incarceration specifically.
The ABS is expected to conclude that review by the middle of this year.[20]
Other matters of interest
2.21
Other matters canvassed with the AGD by the committee included:
- the growing availability of guns in the community and the
effectiveness of the work of the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council;[21]
- payments for people affected by natural disasters and the
criteria used to assist people;[22]
- a court case before the Victorian Court of Appeal in relation to
the release of sources by two journalists in the prosecution of a number of
former employees from Securency and Note Printing Australia;[23] and
- reviews of ASIO adverse security assessments by the Independent
Reviewer of Adverse Security Assessments.[24]
Senator Trish Crossin
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page