Simpkins, Luke, MP

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (17:50): It is nice to have this opportunity to speak on this bill, the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015 and the related Australian Crime Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2015. The finding of crime is no longer—and has not been for some time—just about the police. There is no doubt about that. We know that, as time passes, criminals are getting smarter, crimes are getting more complex, aided by technology, and—certainly part of the complexity of crime—the international nature of crime, or the cross-border nature of crime, is also making things a lot more complex. In the 1980s, I had the honour to serve in the Australian Federal Police for a couple of years. At that time, I considered that our methods were quite modern. I am sure these days it would be vastly different—and luckily, too. It would be quite astounding for me to see what the Australian Federal Police are up to these days. In those days, we used to do surveillance ourselves: as part of various squads, we used to do our own surveillance. Yes, there was a real surveillance team available as well, but often we would do our own surveillance. It was not very complex in this regard: everybody was driving Ford Falcons, basically the same year model. On one occasion, three of our five cars were exactly the same, all with a visor across the front windscreen. If they did not know we were there, then they were not looking very hard. There were other days spent sitting in listening posts, listening to people speaking Chinese and waiting for something to be said in English, after which those tapes were passed on to someone who could speak Cantonese, as I think it was. It was a different time period, that is for sure. We certainly must remain on our guard against developments in crime. Whether as a result of technology, or through personnel or organisational change, we must be ready to do things differently. In the Australian Crime Commission, CrimTrac and all the police agencies, there has been great adaption over time. Today I would like to speak on the efforts and the successes of the agencies and on the importance of their work and its importance to the Australian people. This bill merges the Australian Crime Commission with CrimTrac, bringing both organisations together under the banner of the Australian Crime Commission. Before going into some detail about what the bill does, I will briefly speak on the two agencies. In relation to the Australian Crime Commission, the ACC, I mentioned before that the fight against crime is no longer just about police. The ACC originates from a COAG decision back in 2002 that recognised that things needed to be done differently to address the complex nature of crime. To meet such a demand, it was determined that the Australian Crime Commission should be established as a national agency to concentrate on serious and organised crime. It was created to recognise that a nationwide response was needed to counter nationwide crime and international crime. It was formed to specifically be about intelligence and investigation, and it replaced three agencies, being the National Crime Authority, the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments. What sets it apart is that it conducts its operations in a manner beyond conventional methods of crime fighting, which includes having coercive powers. The other part to this merger is CrimTrac, which facilitates the sharing of information between policing agencies. Specifically through the National Police Checking Service, it helps police with their cases, including murder, assault, domestic violence, missing persons, disaster victim identification, firearms offences, and the crimes that so often afflict our suburbs such as burglaries and break-ins. Before going back to the substance of this bill, I also thought I would highlight a relevant concern of the police in Western Australia regarding such crimes as burglaries, car break-ins and even bag snatches. It does not sound very high tech, but the reason I will raise this concern will become clear. Because of the nature of this issue, I have already raised it with the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, the Hon. Alex Hawke. The matter I raised with him was that the police are trying to conduct a trial to make a local shopping centre a PayPass-free shopping centre; some may know the system as payWave. The police inform me that they suspect that much of the crime where debit cards are stolen relates to the intent to fraudulently use a person's cards in the PayPass method. They tell me that they are increasingly finding that break-ins of vehicles and homes, along with bag snatches, relate to the acquisition of bank account linked cards. Such stolen cards enable a criminal to repeatedly use the card for purchases of up to $100 until there is no money left in the account or the card is stopped by the bank. The purchases are often items that can be on sold on Gumtree, such as gift cards, or are cigarettes or alcohol. They can include other goods as well, up to the value of $100. In any case, the proceeds are often used, after on-selling, for drug purchases. As members of the House would be aware, the banks absorb the costs—maybe they cover those costs in fees and general charges; I do not know—but it is clear that the banks do not seem to be worried by these losses. Indeed, the owners of the cards do not end up paying through a loss of the fraudulently used funds; however, they do wear the impact of the crime where the cards have been stolen. Those costs come in the form of damaged houses or cars, or even those who are injured, like an elderly lady who was hurt by a bag snatcher at a shopping centre near my office in January. Even if insurance covers the cost of repairs, higher premiums may still result. That is on top of the personal cost and the psychological cost of a violent crime or the knowledge one's house has been violated. There are questions that should therefore be asked about PayPass and, in my view, there remains a need for some sort of biometric qualifier before a card can be used. The question therefore is whether the PayPass option is actually fuelling crime in Cowan and elsewhere around the country. I also ask whether it is necessary for a biometric safeguard to validate that the user of the card is the owner of the card. While this is a digression, it is relevant with regard to the workload of police around the country. In returning to the changes under this bill, the bill does acknowledge that much of the success of CrimTrac has been attributed to its business model of self-funding. This bill will allow the merged agency to also make charges for certain services to fund or at least offset the provision of other services to police and the community. As the Minister for Justice mentioned in his second reading speech, the charges levied for CrimTrac's criminal history checking services have helped support its other services, and this bill will also provide the authority for the merged agency to also charge for new services. The charging for services by one government agency to another is not unheard of, and this will enable the merged body to have the capacity to adapt to the law enforcement, investigative and intelligence needs of the future. This will also of course be the subject of the decision of a minister to specify what is to be charged and to whom. Since its inception in 2003, the Australian Crime Commission has had a history of important operations and successes. To target criminal wealth, in 2004, Operation Wickenby was begun jointly with the Australian Taxation Office. A transnational issue, both inside and outside Australia, national and international agencies have come together for intelligence and investigations and to prosecute secret tax haven arrangements. In 2005 Task Force Gordian was established to disrupt a major money-laundering group and it took down a major drug syndicate. It was in 2006 that the Australian Crime Commission was involved in the National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force into violence and child abuse in Indigenous communities. Information was collected and together with intelligence was shared on a wide range of crimes impacting on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Yes it did include child abuse, pornography, alcohol and violence, but it also uncovered drugs and fraud offences. It is not my intention to go through all the public activities of the ACC, but in 2008 the national security statement stated the link of serious and organised crime to a national security threat. In 2013, the national security strategy stated that a key pillar of national security was the prevention, detection and disruption of serious and organised crime. Also worthy of mention is the 2010 world-class data analysis capability named FUSION, where 20 agencies, comprising both traditional and non-traditional partners, were able to access several hundred data sets to build intelligence in order to attack serious and organised crime. Before concluding my comments I did want to speak about the challenges that CrimTrac and the Australian crime commission will face in assisting with our ability to confront crime at the ports of our nation. Of course the risk and the reality have been known for many years. Smuggling contraband is a very old problem, however what we have seen over recent years are the establishment of task forces including the ACC and the role of those task forces has been to target criminal activity. In 2010 Task Force Polaris was established to target criminal activity on the Sydney waterfront, and that was led by the New South Wales Police. In 2013 Taskforce Trident in Melbourne and Task Force Jericho in Brisbane, which included the Australian Crime Commission, looked at wharf and port related criminal activity. All ports are vulnerable and because large amounts of money can be generated by contraband crossing the borders the risk is seen as justified for the criminals, and therefore there are also opportunities to exploit those working on the waterfront. Clearly containers come to Australia by sea and the scale and amount of drugs that can be imported are much larger than by air. Around a billion tonnes of cargo are handled by our ports each year. Handling can be undertaken by the crews on ships, stevedores, Customs staff, customs agents or road and rail transport personnel—there are many involved. With such a large workforce it does mean that it is difficult to control and secure against criminal activity. Those responsible might be organised crime or syndicates and they might also be in league with terrorists where such groups see the advantages of alliance. Although I did mention drugs before, I do mean illicit drugs and of course there are other items that can be illegal but are not drugs, including weapons; there might also be crime to do with importing and duties issues and stealing of goods as well. While the vast majority of those working on the ports are not involved in criminal activity the organised criminals may be being aided by those that they have 'criminally influenced'. Through such insiders weaknesses can be exploited to assist in the criminal activity. While it is true that the majority are not involved, it is nevertheless true that there is a history of serious and organised criminal activity at most Australian ports. Clearly, as I have said before, there is more volume at maritime ports and therefore more value in crime. While it is right that the ACC has had a history of involvement in these port task forces, and the merged body will as well, the future of the merged Australian Crime Commission and CrimTrac will have an important role in the future of criminal intelligence and investigations across the board. As the threats involve, as the technology and methods of organised crime continue to develop, so will our efforts to oppose and defeat them. As the Australian Crime Commission has stated, and quite conservatively, serious and organised crime costs Australia $15 billion every year. This includes losses to business revenues, to tax revenues, the cost of law enforcement and the social and community impacts of crime. To conclude, this bill is part of the plan to merge the two organisations and it is before the House to ensure that the services will continue to improve. It will help to reduce the costs and ensure that excellent services can be delivered in a sustainable manner. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the past and present staff of CrimTrac and the Australian Crime Commission for the excellent work they have done and continue to do and wish the Australian Crime Commission all the best for future operations in defence of the Australian people and our nation. I commend the bill to the House.