Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION (TASMANIA) BILL 2004 (No. 12)

Second Reading

[2.30 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Police and Public Safety - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

The purpose of this bill is to introduce legislation to replace the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act 1985, which was State legislation to underpin or enable the application of the Commonwealth National Crime Authority Act 1984 in Tasmania. The National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act 1985 legislation enabled the Minister for Police and Public Safety, with the approval of the inter-governmental committee, to refer a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity to the National Crime Authority for investigation.

At the leaders' summit on terrorism and multi-jurisdictional crime held in April 2002, the Prime Minister and State and Territory leaders agreed that a new national framework was needed to meet the new challenge of combating terrorism and multinational crime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the attacks on New York on 11 September 2001 demonstrated that previous assumptions about the nature and potential scale of terrorism were no longer valid. In addition, the leaders' summit noted that international and organised criminal groups do not respect State or national borders, and their activities could also result in major harm to all Australians. The leaders recognised the importance of effective cooperation between the jurisdictions, and the need to build on arrangements that will enable a quick and effective response to these challenges. The leaders agreed to strengthen the fight against organised crime by replacing the National Crime Authority - NCA - with the Australian Crime Commission - ACC - that builds on the important features of the NCA for effective national law enforcement operations in partnership with the State and Territory police services.

It was agreed that the ACC would focus on criminal intelligence collection and establishment of national intelligence priorities and for the ACC to have access to task force investigative capabilities to give effect to its intelligence functions and to support its overall operations. Consequently, the Commonwealth Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 commenced on 1 January 2003. This act repealed the Commonwealth National Crime Authority Act 1984 and made the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act 1985 redundant.

The Commonwealth act provides for inclusion of the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments - OSCA - and the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence - ABCI - within the ACC, retention of the capacity to use coercive powers and to investigate criminal activity of national significance, and the streamlining of the process for obtaining investigation references.

The Commonwealth act provides for the Australian Crime Commission Board to include representatives from all States and Territories. Ministerial oversight is retained by having the board report to an intergovernmental committee - ACC-IGC - of State and Commonwealth ministers.

This bill will provide for the underpinning of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2003 and therefore the effective operation of the Australian Crime Commission within Tasmania in accordance with the agreement reached between the Prime Minister and the Premier.

The Commonwealth Australian Crime Commission Act establishes the governing regime for the Australian Crime Commission, including the establishment of a board comprising the major players in law enforcement in Australia from the Commonwealth, States and Territories. The board has a pivotal role in determining national criminal intelligence priorities and in overseeing the strategic direction of, and the priorities for, the Australian Crime Commission.

While the Australian Crime Commission Act retains the existing NCA intergovernmental committee concept, the functions of the IGC have been amended to reflect the existence of the board and to ensure that the IGC maintains an appropriate monitoring and oversight role. Of importance, however, are the provisions that streamline the existing reference system to ensure that cumbersome administrative processes do not hinder the ACC while, at the same time, ensuring that the necessary accountability exists.

The Australian Crime Commission Act maintains the existing powers that were available to the NCA and amends the provisions to enable the ACC to have access, in accordance with a determination of the board, to investigatory powers in order for it to carry out both its criminal intelligence and its investigatory roles.

The board has the power to authorise the use of coercive powers for intelligence operations or investigations. However, there are special requirements for the composition of the board, or a committee of the board, and special voting requirements in relation to authorisation of applications. While the board, or a committee of the board, may authorise the use of coercive powers, the powers can be exercised by independent statutory officers called examiners. These powers are available for special ACC operations or investigations when the board has determined that this is necessary in accordance with the specified threshold test.

The Australian Crime Commission Act also ensures that, where State legislation confers a function, duty or power on the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Crime Commission is able to undertake that function or exercise that power or duty, in the same way that the NCA was able to act under State legislation.

This bill is based on model legislation that has been adopted by most States and Territories. Tasmania is not immune from established criminal networks such as outlawed motorcycle gangs or organised groups who plunder our natural resources such as abalone. Most members will be aware that in December 2001 this State gave a reference to the NCA in relation to abalone poaching. As a result of that joint investigation, a number of people from within this State and other States were charged and convicted of serious offences in relation to the illicit trade of abalone. Clearly other references from this State to the ACC can be expected in the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, consequential amendments are required to the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Act 1999, the Gaming Control Act 1993, the Taxation Administration Act 1997 and the Witness Protection Act 2000. These acts make reference to the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act 1985. The impact on these pieces of legislation is not significant. The whole community will benefit from these provisions and will see this as yet another very positive strategy put into effect by this Government to help guarantee a community where people feel safe and are safe in all aspects of their lives. I commend the bill to the House.

[2.39 p.m.]

Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, this legislation, The Australian Crime Commission (Tasmania) Bill 2004, is to replace the National Crime Authority (Tasmania) Act 1985 which is the Tasmanian legislation which underpinned the Commonwealth National Crime Authority Act 1984, coming about as a result of the agreement to strengthen the fight against organised crime by replacing the National Crime Authority with the Australian Crime Commission.

The Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 commenced on 1 January 2003, repealing the Commonwealth National Crime Authority Act to make the National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act redundant. The Australian Crime Commission came about as the result of the leader's summit on terrorism and multi-jurisdictional crime held in April 2003, where it was agreed to strengthen the fight against crime.

It is worth noting some of the successes of the Australian Crime Commission since it gained royal assent and came into operation some 20 month ago. I have here a number of press releases that have been issued by the responsible minister, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison. I think it is worthwhile just apprising the House of some of the work that the Australian Crime Commission has been involved in. The following was released on 15 November 2003:

'A four-month investigation, involving Commonwealth and State law enforcement agencies, has resulted in a massive firearm seizure and a number of arrests in New South Wales. A series of raids across New South Wales began in August 2003 and resulted in 813 firearms being seized by the ACC and New South Wales police. A large quantity of parts which could potentially be used in the assembly of another 2 500 firearms was also seized.'

There was also a big gun haul that occurred in Victoria:

'Another big seizure of unregistered and illegal firearms in Victoria has highlighted the vital role played by the Australian Crime Commission in preventing guns being used in violent crime. Joint operations between the ACC and Victoria Police have resulted in the seizure of a cache of weapons including a replica Owen sub-machine gun, six pistols, five semi-automatic rifles, two pump-action shot guns and a large quantity of firearm parts as well as 63 boxes of ammunition.

Previous intelligence reports compiled by the Australian Crime Commission have identified domestic manufacturers as a source for illegal firearms, and this is the third incident where the ACC's work has uncovered locally manufactured firearms. Previous seizures included three replica Owen sub-machine guns and a range of other firearms in Victoria on 22 July last year, and 813 that were seized in New South Wales.'

On 9 July 2004 there was a release about an operation run by the Australian Crime Commission which has resulted in the freezing of assets valued at over $2.5 million, where a couple of Western Australian businessmen were arrested and charged with a total of 341 offences, including 296 counts of insider trading and eleven counts of communicating inside information under the Corporations Act, a number of counts of money laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and one of destroying evidence under the Australian Securities Investments Commission Act. Since the Australian Crime Commission began operating some 20 months ago there have no doubt been a number of successes that it has been involved in.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is worth mentioning that 11 September and the events that occurred on that day certainly changed the world. We all thought that the unthinkable happened. I can recall on that night I had been to a function. I was not then elected to Parliament but had been out to a function and my wife was managing a hotel in my absence. I arrived home, I think, a bit after 11 p.m. that night and Mandy was running the hotel until she knocked off and left it in the hands of the staff at midnight. I turned the television on and I can remember looking at the screen and thinking this was a movie. Then I walked to the kitchen, made a sandwich, sat down and I could not believe that it was actually a live feed that I was seeing. My wife came and joined me around midnight, and I said, 'You just will not believe what is going on'. I think that is probably the way that most people felt at the time, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it was the unthinkable, and the world certainly changed on that night. And with the world changing, I think assumptions changed about what actions terrorists were capable of and what actions terrorists were prepared to take. The scale of planning, organisation, destruction and loss of life shattered the paradigm that was held by most people as to what was possible.

The leaders' summit attended by the Prime Minister and the Premiers and first ministers recognised this and agreed to strengthen the fight against organised crime by replacing the NCA with the ACC and building on the strengths of the previous NCA framework. The Commonwealth Act provides for OSCA, the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments, and Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence to be included in the ACC for the ACC to obtain the capacity to use coercive power and investigate criminal activity of national significance. Make no mistake, this legislation is tough legislation, no doubt about that. It is legislation that provides for examiners to have available to them wide-ranging coercive powers, powers, however, that I believe ordinary law-abiding citizens having nothing to fear. It is the criminals, the lawless, the crime bosses, the terrorists whom this act seeks to investigate, to root out and to bring to justice who should fear.

It is interesting to note that this legislation was tabled in the autumn session in early April and it has been on the Table since then. I have not had one constituent or one organisation raise issues with this bill in that time frame. I think that sends a message that society today is well aware of the changes that have occurred and is well aware of the need for legislation of this type to ensure that those people who are law abiding are protected.

With this bill, ministerial oversight is still maintained by having the board of the ACC report to an intergovernmental committee of Commonwealth and State ministers. There are just a couple of matters, Minister, that I hope you might clear up in your response. It is probably an issue of mine in respect of the way that I have read the bill. When I read the existing NCA bill for State ministers, in enabling State ministers to make a referral to seek a matter to be investigated, I could not see where the wording of that is in the current bill and how that referral mechanism is going to work, and whether or not it is you, as the Minister for Police and Public Safety, or whether you ask the Commissioner of Police to make that referral?

Will you clarify how that referral mechanism operates and what would occur in a practical sense. We will be supporting this legislation subject to those few queries I have raised being answered. I do not see the need to take this to committee stage if we can deal with those in your response, especially as this legislation, as you have already mentioned, is based on model legislation which has been adopted by most States and Territories.

In finishing, just let me thank the minister for the briefing that was provided and could you extend that thank you to the commissioner and to his officers who attended that briefing.

[2.49 p.m.]

Ms PUTT (Denison - Leader of the Greens) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had discussions with the Australian Greens in relation to this legislation because obviously it is pursuant to the application of the Commonwealth National Crime Authority Act in Tasmania. I understand that a new national framework was agreed at the leaders' summit that took place some while ago now following the terrible events in America on 11 September. That summit on terrorism and multijurisdictional crime had the Prime Minister and the State and Territories leaders agreeing on a new national framework to meet those new challenges in that area, as the minister has outlined in his second reading speech. Part of that, of course, was cooperation between jurisdictions and an agreement to replace the National Crime Authority with the Australian Crime Commission.

The Greens had problems with a number of aspects of changed legislation that were put in place at the national level subsequent to 11 September and those concerns were made known widely around Australia. However, this particular initiative was not one about which the Greens protested in the Senate but was one with which they were prepared to agree.

Give that was the position of the Australian Greens when these matters came before the Australian Parliament, the Tasmanian Greens therefore also will support this bill in order to underpin the effective operation of the Australian Crime Commission within Tasmania.

I do not think there is much more that I need to say on it. Some of the powers, of course, have been the matter of some discussion but, as I say, the fundamentals of this legislation are something that the Greens find themselves able to support.

[2.52 p.m.]

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, as Her Majesty's shadow attorney-general for the State of Tasmania, I rise to support this bill because the Opposition Parliamentary Liberal Party is tough on crime and particularly tough on organised crime.

We welcome this legislation. We remind the Parliament that we strongly support it; indeed we initiated the Tasmanian National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act of 1985 which underpinned the Commonwealth National Crime Authority Act of 1984.

We remind the House that our legislation in fact enabled the Minister for Police and Public Safety, with the approval of the intergovernmental committee, to refer a matter relating to a relevant criminal activity to the National Crime Authority for investigation. We were one of the first of the States to do that.

We note that the State legislation became redundant in 2003 in January of last year with the introduction of the Commonwealth Australian Crime Commission Act of 2002, which effectively repealed the Commonwealth National Crime Authority Act of 1984. As a result of this, many months later, the Australian Crime Commission (Tasmania) Bill 2004 has been drafted and now introduced into the Parliament.

So it is not surprising that my colleague, the relevant shadow minister, Mr Peter Gutwein MHA, has so strongly supported the legislation and my Leader, the next Premier of Tasmania, is not only supporting the legislation but is in fact in the House.

It is important to point out that with the redundancy of the Tasmanian National Crime Authority (State Provisions) Act of 1985, brought in by the Gray Liberal Government, there is no legislative authority for the Australian Crimes Commission to conduct investigations or intelligence operations in relation to State offences which do not have a Federal aspect.

We are back to square one and the Australian Crimes Commission is crippled because it does not have the capacity following the redundancy of our State legislation. I have to say to, Deputy Premier, whilst we welcome the legislation, we have been naked in legal terms and now the legislation comes. But I am not uncharitable and you were kind enough to congratulate me before lunch on another bill. I have to say, Deputy, better late than never.

Mr Llewellyn - I reminded you there were transitional arrangements.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - I know you reminded me of that, but we are talking about legislation - an act of the Parliament of the sovereign State of Tasmania in the Commonwealth of Australia - if you want to get me back on constitutional law, which I am feeling fairly upmarket about in view of your extraordinary constitutional experiment over the last 11 months in the vice-regal area, which we do not want to revisit. Some will say there are 650 000 very good reasons why we should revisit it.

Mr Sturges - The next appointment is apolitical, Michael.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - Well, I want to address that. I thank the member for Denison, with whom I have a very good working relationship - much better than another member for Denison - for the interjection because I want to say something about the Premier's words. I agreed with him in the House this morning. It is good that it is an apolitical appointment. That means you do not appoint one from your own party or one of your mates. I want to refer to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia -

Mr Llewellyn - That doesn't exclude you.

Members laughing .

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - That is quite right. On the other side of the coin, do you know what was revealed at the State funeral in Perth of that very great Australian, former Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Sir Paul Hasluck - which I attended and represented the Government and people of Tasmania? It was revealed that the newly-elected Prime Minister of Australia, the Honourable Edward Gough Whitlam QC, MP, asked Sir Paul Hasluck - who of course was a former Federal Liberal minister - to continue on for a second term as Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr Llewellyn - Did you write that on your CV?

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - Listen to this. Sir Paul Hasluck declined the invitation, not because he did not want to accept it but because Lady Hasluck was critically ill. In the absence of Sir Paul's acceptance, the Honourable E.G. Whitlam QC, MP then appointed Sir John Kerr and, as they say in the classics, the rest is history. So you can make an apolitical appointment providing it is not somebody from your own side.

With great respect to the transitional arrangements, Deputy, we want the legislation. As my colleague, Mr Gutwein, so eloquently pointed out in a first-rate speech, this bill will provide for the underpinning of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 and therefore an effective operation of the ACC within Tasmania in accordance with the agreements reached between the Prime Minister, the Premiers of the States and chief ministers of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and will permit Tasmania to refer matters to the ACC for investigation, such as issues concerning organised crime groups who may be plundering our natural resources or who have criminal networks both nationally and internationally.

As a matter of interest, one such matter in relation to a major poaching operation, the illicit poaching and trade of abalone, was in fact the subject of a reference by the State of Tasmania to the NCA back in December 2001. Just as a matter of passing interest and in the presence of distinguished members of the Tasmanian police force present in the Chamber today, I note that just yesterday two officers involved in that operation were decorated for their outstanding work. Both are to be warmly congratulated. While I am on that subject, I think all Tasmanians would warmly congratulate Damian Bidgood and his colleague on their very well merited awards from the Commissioner of Police for their great bravery in rescuing people from Pedra Branca. I am one of the few members of this House who have seen Pedra Branca and been down there in a force 9 gale and I know what it is like when you are on an attack class patrol boat of the Royal Australian Navy, HMAS Ardent , which is not supposed to be out in anything more than a force 6 -

Mr Hidding - Chasing the enemy.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - chasing the enemy.

Members laughing .

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - We in fact were hoping to find a couple of international poachers because that was the last occasion when HMAS Anzac had gunnery practice at sea. I was the gunnery officer and I was hoping for a moving target. We actually thought we saw a couple of Japanese fishing vessels on the horizon but unfortunately on closer inspection it turned out they were not. But having said that, for a moment memories of World War II were rushing through my veins as I directed the crew and the boat was trained on the target. However, enough of that.

Mr Gutwein - Did you sink them anyway?

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - I would have liked to.

Mr Llewellyn - Anyway, thanks for the compliments.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - I do like you, Deputy. I am not one of that group who has you at four out of 10, which I thought was a bit rough in the -

Mr Llewellyn - I thought it was a badge of honour.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - A bit rough - you and Kathryn Hay both got four out of 10 in the Examiner . I am just a bit surprised at that.

In conclusion I want the Deputy Premier to note - and I am not anticipating the debate - that this week in the Parliament I gave notice of a motion - I am not stopping to debate it, I just want to draw it to your attention - that, in the opinion of the House, the time is now very appropriate for a joint select committee of the Parliament to be appointed to inquire into and report upon the need for an independent commission against corruption - ICAC - for the State of Tasmania. I just want to say that I am interested and I am in fact planning to carry out some investigations both in the State of New South Wales and in the State of Queensland as to how their ICACs, which are different, work in relation to the ACC.

Mr Llewellyn - I wouldn't put too much effort into it.

Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - I am very interested in it and I have to say to you that I am not certain whether I would support it or not. I am suggesting quite seriously you should think about it; it could avoid the ad hoc debate you have as to when you should have a royal commission or a commission of inquiry; that to some extent would depoliticise the subject of the investigation. I am informed by those who know that sometimes the politicisation of issues creates a climate which it makes it very difficult for the investigation which follows, and you would not need me to spell that out in any more detail.

I am just saying that I have given the notice of motion quite genuinely because of my interest. It may be now that the ability to refer State matters to the ACC relieves the State of the need to have an ICAC. On the other hand, it may be that my investigations will show that the ACC, for a number of reasons, might well welcome a totally independent State authority. One of the people to whom I intend to speak about this duality of functions is in fact Sir Max Bingham, because he is the only distinguished living Australian I know to whom we, in Tasmania, can have easy access. He of course was the very highly respected and very successful chair of the commission which was established in Queensland. I am saying that quite apart from the other discussions of other matters this week.

The final comment I want to make is a general one. I believe that the National Crime Authority did a good job but I have to say that from time to time its work, in my opinion, was prejudiced and jeopardised by the intervention of mainly Federal parliamentarians who became involved in issues. You had a situation where, at the very time the NCA was engaged in major litigation against a very prominent Melbourne businessman, there were Senate committees sitting and questions being asked and allegations being made.

My view is very firm and I hope it is your view as Deputy Premier of the State of Tasmania that if you are going to give power to the Australian Crimes Commission to investigate matters of a State nature, which is what we are doing, we Tasmanian parliamentarians and the Parliament itself should then step back and let them get on with the job.

I have spoken to senior persons who were with the National Crime Authority and they said they fully expect that a businessman under attack is going to attack them. What they found very difficult was when they were doing their job conscientiously there was party political sniping, unfortunately mainly through Senate committees. So if we are genuine in fighting crime, and the Opposition is tough on crime, then we say in supporting this legislation let the Australian Crime Commission get on with the job and let the politicians step back and do not become involved.

Having said that I support the bill.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[3.07 p.m.]

Mr McKIM (Franklin) - Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise, briefly, to speak to this bill in relation to two general areas.

The first is that public policy-makers quite rightly concern themselves with the overall wellbeing of the communities which they represent and there is no doubt that one aspect of overall wellbeing in a community is the feeling of security. There are also many other aspects that contribute to the wellbeing of a community but one that is probably higher in most people's minds now than it was three or four years ago is certainly whether or not they feel secure in their communities.

The Greens firmly consider the wellbeing of the communities which we represent here in the Parliament and we certainly consider people's desire to be secure and safe in their community. On that basis there is no doubt in our minds that this bill does aid in the security that is felt by Tasmanian communities and, as has been indicated by Ms Putt, the member for Denison, we will support this bill, as did our colleagues support the Federal aspects in the Federal Parliament.

The second thing that I would like to very briefly raise is a bit of a cautionary statement and that is that we all remember the terrible events of 11 September 2001 and we are all aware that the world has moved on since then, but just because something is being done in response to the change in the world's security since 2001 that does not automatically or necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do. Witness the illegal invasion of Iraq for one.

It is incumbent on us as policy-makers to attempt to guarantee, as best we can, the safety and security of the people whom we represent but also to defend their freedoms, which exist at least in part in the communities which we represent as a result of previous wars that have been fought by Australians and in which many Australians have died.

It is a difficult decision often for us to make where we may need to potentially trade off some aspects of the checks and balances or of the freedoms to which we have become accustomed in order to attempt to maximise the security and safety of our communities. I just wanted to put that on the record because it is important that people know that we are not going to automatically approve of something just because it has come about as a result of a perceived need to defend against terrorism, for example. We do need to examine them carefully and we need to figure out whether any trade-offs that we might be making in terms of sacrificing any of the freedoms which we have enjoyed up until recent times are in fact justified by an increase in the security that we are delivering to our communities. We believe in this case that it is, but it is something that we did examine very carefully.

[3.10 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Police and Public Safety) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the House for their support for this particular legislation. We obviously have not been operating in a vacuum in the interregnum between the NCA and the ACC, but obviously we need to pass this legislation and to regularise things and to get ourselves set up appropriately under the new Australian Crime Commission provisions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this bill in itself in many respects replicates the National Crime Authority provisions that have hitherto been in place; the issues of coercive powers and so on were all part of that original bill. But there is a streamlining process in this particular piece of legislation which the member for Bass asked me to comment a bit more on. Concerning abalone poaching, can I say to him that under the old provisions of the NCA I had a number of discussions with the commissioner about that issue and indicated that I thought there was a need for us to redouble our efforts and perhaps take into account interstate arrangements and so on, and suggested that it was an issue that probably needed to go to the NCA for us to provide that additional support.

But through that process we had to then, having initiated the reference, to get the separate approval of all of the intergovernmental committees. That means we had to go to all of the ministers and actually have the reference ticked off by every other minister in the process, and that obviously takes quite a while. On the occasion that I am talking about, it took a considerable period of time; I am not sure how long but it was months to actually get the reference in place. Of course the intergovernmental committee then comes together usually with the police ministers meeting - that happens twice a year - and they approve things on that basis. You can approve it out of session, but again, you need to have the individual support of the ministers.

This legislation provides that there is a board constituted of those principal crime prevention stakeholders around the Commonwealth, and the board has the function under clause 8 to determine in writing whether an ACC State intelligence operation is a special operation or whether an ACC State investigation is a special operation and so on. So we still go through the same process with the commissioner, I guess, and refer the matter then directly to the board.

Mr Gutwein - Do you instruct the commissioner to influence the board?

Mr LLEWELLYN - Well, no; I think it is in consultation with the commissioner, or the commissioner would initiate the response to the board and then obviously I would need to support that. Then if you have a look at page 15, clause 8(5) says:

'The Chair of the Board must, within a period of 3 days beginning on the day a determination under subsection (2) or (3) is made, give a copy of the determination to the Inter-Governmental Committee.'

So that is the accountability, if you like. Having made a decision that the reference will happen, the board then have to communicate that through to the intergovernmental committee, which comprises all the ministers within a period. So you can see here that we can set up special reference and have it officially approved within a week, whereas it took months through the old process; so that is the streamline that they are talking about in the legislation.

I take on board the issue of course that Mr McKim makes, the need for a balance between the rights that you afford people in society and the rights of the police service and others to investigate and so on. But there are all checks and balances associated with that and I believe they are all encompassed in this legislation. If it had not have been for the coercive powers that we had through the NCA in the abalone case, for instance, I do not believe we would have been able to produce the convictions and achieved the outcome that we did. But certainly those coercive powers were the ones that achieved the outcome there, and I think it is important sometimes to be able to apply them in that way. I thank members

Bill read the second time and taken through the remaining stages.