CHAPTER 1: ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES


CHAPTER 1: ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES

1.1        The following reports of statutory authorities for the financial year 2004-2005 were referred to the committee for examination and report:

  • Aboriginal Land Commissioner;
  • Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc;
  • Administrative Appeals Tribunal;
  • Administrative Review Council;
  • Anindilyakwa Land Council;
  • Australian Crime Commission;
  • Australian Customs Service;
  • Australian Government Solicitor;
  • Australian Institute of Criminology and the Criminology Research Council;
  • Australian Law Reform Commission;
  • Australian Security Intelligence Organisation;
  • Australian Transaction Reports Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC);
  • Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation;
  • Central Land Council;
  • Central Queensland Land Council Aboriginal Corporation;
  • Commonwealth Ombudsman;
  • CrimTrac Agency;
  • Federal Court of Australia;
  • Federal Magistrates Court of Australia;
  • High Court of Australia;
  • Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;
  • National Native Title Tribunal;
  • North Queensland Land Council Native Title Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation;
  • Northern Land Council;
  • Office of Film and Literature Classification – Classification Board and Classification Review Board;
  • Tiwi Land Council; and
  • Torres Strait Regional Authority.

1.2        In this report, the committee has chosen to examine in greater detail the annual reports of the following agencies: the Australian Customs Service (ACS); the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO); the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC); the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT); the North Queensland Land Council Native Title Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation (NQLC); and the Northern Land Council (NLC).

Australian Customs Service (ACS)

1.3        The ACS advised that its operational expenditure in 2004-2005 was $925.1 million and its capital expenditure was $63.4 million.

1.4        The ACS also reported duties collection of over $5 billion in 2004-2005 (over $5 billion in 2003-2004). Further, the ACS administered $1,366 million of government concessions, including $548 million under the Tariff Concession Scheme ($479 million in 2003-2004) and $121 million in duty drawbacks to industry ($106 million in 2003-2004).[4]

1.5        During the reporting period, the ACS seized 194kg of cocaine (compared to 131kg in 2003-2004), 2,375kg of MDMA (ecstasy) (873 kg in 2003-2004), 151kg of amphetamine-type stimulants (6kg in 2003-2004), 177kg of heroin (62kg in 2003-2004), and 5kg of cannabis (709kg in 2003-2004).[5]

1.6        A number of new technology projects were funded in 2004-2005 with the aim of enhancing maritime and aviation security. These included:

  • $20.5 million over four years for the purchase of new technology for biological and chemical agent screening;
  • $13.2 million over four years for the purchase and installation of new mail screening technology in Sydney and Melbourne;
  • $22.4 million over four years to extend the waterfront closed circuit television network system from the current 32 proclaimed ports to all 62 proclaimed ports; and
  • $8.4 million over two years for the field trial of new neutron scanning technology for air cargo containers.[6]

1.7        The ACS also reported that its Cargo Management Reengineering (CMR) project, including the development of an Integrated Cargo System (ICS), achieved major milestones during the reporting period. The highlight was the implementation of the CMR exports component which was initially made available on 1 August 2004 for entry of client information and then on 22 September for export messages relating to cargo being exported after 2am on 6 October.[7]

1.8         Development of the imports component of the CMR application suite was completed in the latter part of 2004. The ACS advised that functionality was made available to industry and software developers from 1 November 2004, which enabled the testing of both Customs and industry systems and business processes. The deployment of the ICS imports cargo system in late 2005 and 'bedding in of related business processes' was seen as a challenge for the 2005-2006 period.[8]

1.9        The ACS reported that it has received a number of complaints concerning its approach to the recovery of duty following the decision by the High Court in Malika Holdings Pty Ltd v Stretton. Complainants have argued that recovery action should be limited to 12 months, however, the ACS advised that its approach, supported by independent advice and legal counsel, is to recover duty for periods of up to four years. The annual report noted that the Full Federal Court supported this approach in 2004 in the decision of Parks Holdings trading as Gladstone v CEO of Customs.[9]

1.10      The committee considers the annual report of the ACS to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)

1.11      ASIO reported that, in light of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, its funding had increased from $62.935 million in 2000-2001 to $142.852 million in 2004-2005. This additional funding has allowed ASIO to grow from 584 staff at 30 June 2001 to 955 at 30 June 2005, with funding committed that will see staff numbers grow to around 1150 in 2005-2006.[10]

1.12      Some of the key highlights reported by ASIO in 2004-2005 were:

  • expansion of ASIO's international liaison network with the posting of additional officers overseas and establishing liaison with additional security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, taking the total to 266 agencies in 112 countries;
  • increased cooperation with regional partners, including the laying of groundwork for a joint counter-terrorism training program to build counter-terrorism capabilities in South-East Asia and the Pacific; and
  • extension of training and development opportunities with a specific emphasis on leadership, investigative and analytical skills, language and cross-cultural training, as well as administrative and information technology training.[11]

1.13      ASIO advised of several relevant legislative amendments passed over the reporting period. The ASIO Act was twice amended during 2004-2005: first, by the passing of the Anti-terrorism Act (No. 3) 2004; and, second, by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act 2004. Other legislative changes relevant to ASIO were the National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Act 2004, the National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Amendment (Application) Act 2005 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment (Stored Communications) Act 2004. According to the annual report, these amendments combined to, amongst other things, further refine Australia's counter-terrorism legal framework, put measures in place to protect classified information in legal proceedings, and streamline the provisions for intercepting stored communications.[12]

1.14      The committee notes the departure on 27 May 2005 of Mr Dennis Richardson as Director-General of ASIO to take up the position of Australia's ambassador to Washington. The committee would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge Mr Richardson's significant contribution to ASIO over eight and a half years, particularly in more recent times where immense challenges have arisen in the security environment.

1.15      The committee finds the annual report of ASIO to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC)

1.16      The committee congratulates the ALRC on reaching its 30th anniversary in 2005. A one-day symposium, The Promise of Law Reform, and a gala dinner were held in Sydney on 9 June 2005 in celebration of this milestone. The committee also notes that the ALRC produced a short documentary-style DVD, entitled 30 Years of Reform: The Movie, and a book entitled The Promise of Law Reform, to mark the 30th anniversary.[13]

1.17      The ALRC advised that its final report in relation to the inquiry into Gene Patenting and Human Health, entitled Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health, was tabled in Parliament and publicly released on 31 August 2004.[14]

1.18      The ALRC also began two new inquiries in the reporting period: a review of the Evidence Act 1995; and a review of Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 dealing with the sentencing of federal offenders.[15] The Evidence inquiry was a collaborative project between the ALRC, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission and the Victorian Law Commission. In addition, ongoing relationships were established with the Tasmania Law Reform Institute, the Queensland Law Reform Commission, the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee and the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia which enabled research, submission and consultation notes to be shared between all these organisations. The Federal Offenders inquiry also involved the development of a collaborative relationship between the ALRC and the Australian Institute of Criminology.[16]

1.19      The ALRC advised that it continued to take a lead role in the establishment of the new Commonwealth Association of Law Reform Agencies (CALRAs). A meeting of the CALRAs Executive was held in South Africa in March 2005. The ALRC President, Professor David Weisbrot, who is the CALRAs Vice-President, attended the meeting, which was timed to coincide with the inaugural conference of the Association of Law Reform Agencies for Eastern and Southern Africa. The first face-to-face meeting of CALRA's members, to take place in conjunction with the Commonwealth Law Conference, was scheduled to be held in London on 11 September 2005.[17]

1.20      The committee also notes the valuable contribution of Professor Anne Finlay – whose three-year term expired on 11 November 2004 – to the work of the ALRC. Professor Finlay co-led the ALRC's inquiry into Gene Patenting and Human Health and was Commissioner in charge of the ALRC's Evidence inquiry.[18]

1.21      The committee considers the annual report of the ALRC to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT)

1.22      The NNTT reported some significant changes to native title law during the reporting period. For example, major changes were made by the legislation which abolished the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). The NNTT advised that the 'main difference for the native title system flowing from the new arrangements is likely to be the absence of an indigenous body to take on the advocacy role previously performed by ATSIC in relation to native title policy and practice'.[19]

1.23      The NNTT advised that, at 30 June 2005, there were 584 claimant applications at some stage between lodgement and resolution. This total was slightly lower than the 615 active claimant applications as at 30 June 2004. In the reporting period, 65 claimant applications were discontinued, dismissed, withdrawn, struck-out, combined with other applications, or were the subject of approved native title determinations, and 32 new claimant applications were lodged.[20]

1.24      During the reporting period, the NNTT completed a review of the outputs by which it reports its performance in order to capture more accurately the complexity of changes in workload and the nature of the work influenced by these external factors. The NNTT started the 2005-2006 financial year with a new outcome statement and a revised outputs structure that more clearly reflects its purpose and its changed operating environment:

The new outcome statement, 'Resolution of native title issues over land and waters', better identifies the role and responsibilities of the [NNTT] than the previous outcome statement 'Recognition and protection of native title'.[21]

1.25      In his overview, the President of the NNTT predicted some key trends in native title law and practice and the factors that will affect how native title issues are resolved in the future:

  • the law in relation to native title will become clearer;
  • the volume of native title work will increase;
  • agreement-making will become the usual method of resolving native title issues;
  • the form and content of agreements will vary from place to place;
  • there will be an increased focus on 'second generation' native title issues; and
  • the Federal Court will continue to affect, if not drive, native title processes.[22]

1.26      The committee considers the annual report of the NNTT to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

North Queensland Land Council Native Title Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation (NQLC)

1.27      The NQLC advised that it achieved some significant Native Title outcomes for Native Title holders in the Cairns region and has made consistent progress on all Native Title claims represented by the NQLC during the reporting period. This was recognised by Justice Spender at a Federal Court Regional Directions Hearing on 10 May 2005:

The [NQLC] deserves to be congratulated for its efforts because, of all the Land Councils, it has consistently shown a pro-active approach and the activity across the region from the Land Council has been very satisfying from the perspective of the Federal Court.[23]

1.28      This success came 'despite the emergence of a number of issues which have or possess the potential to impact negatively on operational performance', including concerns about future administrative arrangements for Native Title Representative Bodies and possible changes to the Native Title Act 1993.[24]

1.29      The Chairperson of the NQLC advised also that a growth period in its activities has, amongst other things, placed 'enormous pressure on the organisation to recruit professional staff, allocate appropriate office accommodation for staff requirements and ensure the Governing Committee are given adequate support to carry out our functions'.[25]

1.30      The NQLC also reported a 'well coordinated and effective' local working relationship between its officers and those of the NNTT, although some difficulties were experienced in relation to 'the inconsistent application of the registration test by NNTT delegates based in Sydney' which has caused 'delays and unnecessary additional expense'. The NQLC has initiated discussions with the NNTT about concerns it has in relation to the registration test, in particular NNTT delegates' 'attitudes towards the substantiation of native title rights and interests claimed in native title applications and authorisation processes'.[26]

1.31      The committee notes the NQLC's advice that it has generally met its performance goals as identified in its approved operational plan across all Output groups and has operated within its budget parameters.  

1.32      Some key highlights during the reporting period included:

  • the achievement of the Djabugay Barron Gorge Native Title Determination in December 2004 which was the first determination in Queensland over a national park, and the third determination of Native Title in the NQLC's representative region;
  • the signing and registration of the Tagalaka/Croydon Shire Indigenous Land Use Agreement;
  • the negotiation of exclusive rights with the Queensland Government for the Mamu people (in conjunction with private business interests and Indigenous Business Australia) to design, construct and operate the Mamu Rainforest Canopy Walkway within the Wooroonooran National Park near Innisfail; and
  • the conduct of a successful annual Native Title land summit in Atherton in early October 2004.[27]

1.33      The committee finds the annual report of the NQLC to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

Northern Land Council (NLC)

1.34      The NLC noted that in the reporting period it conducted over 400 remote area consultations in relation to a wide range of policies and proposals.

1.35      Of particular note was the reaching of an historic settlement agreement with the Northern Territory Government over the lease-back and joint management of Northern Territory parks and reserves which will bring benefits to traditional Aboriginal owners. The NLC reported that, given the scale of the negotiations, meeting the statutory deadline set out in the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Act 2003 was a significant achievement.[28]

1.36      The NLC also reported that it successfully completed negotiations between native title holders and the proponents of two new mines: a manganese mine and a new gold mine for the Northern Territory. Both these projects 'are expected to result in significant economic benefits to the traditional owners, both in terms of income and employment'.[29]

1.37      Despite reporting increased productivity, including an increased number of land use agreements and consistent performance in the acquisition of land for the benefit of Aboriginal people, the NLC revealed that an operational review during the reporting period demonstrated clearly that funding for the NLC has reached a critical point. The annual report suggests that funding for the NLC has not been consistently adjusted to take account of the consumer price index; this means that the shortfall in real funding over the reporting period is over $100 million.[30] Further, the funding shortfall is exacerbated by the lack of growth funding for the NLC.[31]

1.38      The NLC has estimated that it requires an approximate 30% across-the-board annual funding increase in order 'to maintain growth at the same rate in key outputs such as land use agreements and to appropriately meet the challenge of securing social, cultural and economic benefits flow to traditional owners into the future'.[32]

1.39      The NLC also welcomed a new Chairman, Mr John Daly, after the retirement of Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu in October 2004, after more than 20 years as Chairman.[33]

1.40      The committee considers the annual report of the NLC to be 'apparently satisfactory'.

For further information, contact:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Phone: +61 2 6277 3560
Fax: +61 2 6277 5794
Email: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page