The ability of the Corruption and Crime Commission to charge and prosecute” — Motion
Resumed from 14 March on the following motion moved by Hon Jim Chown —
That the report be noted.
Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise representing the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission. This has come to the attention of Parliament because it arises from a report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission of the thirty-ninth Parliament. A comprehensive report was undertaken about the ability of the Corruption and Crime Commission to charge and prosecute. It is very timely for us to look at the report. I note that the Attorney General has provided a reply. The committee was of the view that this is an ongoing issue that deserves close attention. I note that a couple of recommendations came from that previous report. I hope that members of the previous committee, which undertook that inquiry may want to contribute to the discussion on this report. The first recommendation states —
The Corruption and Crime Commission include a specific update, on the efficiency and effectiveness of its arrangements with the State Solicitor for the commencement and conduct of prosecutions, in its Annual Report for 2016–17.
As I understand it, that has effectively had to be delayed and we are now looking at the CCC’s annual report 2017–18 as an opportunity to review that recommendation. On reading the findings in the report, it is clear that although when the CCC was first established there was not an anticipation that the CCC’s powers would include the power to prosecute, subsequently, various incarnations of the CCC felt it did have that authority. It took the matter of A v Maugham [WASCA] 128 being prosecuted to determine that those powers do not exist. This is a pertinent issue that goes to the heart, I think, of what we expect out of a body that has extraordinary investigative powers and whether it is helpful for it to have powers to also prosecute. Recommendation 2 states —
The Attorney General undertake a review into the efficiency and effectiveness of the commencement and conduct of prosecutions arising from Corruption and Crime Commission investigations and table a report on that review within 12 months of the tabling of the Corruption and Crime Commission’s Annual Report for 2016–17.
I note that, like the previous review, it has effectively been delayed but I hope that will be forthcoming. I would like to contribute more in my individual capacity, but I am particularly interested to hear from members of the previous committee that undertook this inquiry about their thoughts on the findings and recommendations.
Hon NICK GOIRAN: The matter before us is the second report of the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, a very important committee of Parliament comprising two members from this place and two members from the other place. Hon Alison Xamon, who is, of course, one of those unfortunate second-class members on this committee, has quite rightly pointed out in her contribution this afternoon that the genesis of this report is the previous iteration of the committee, which I was the chair of. My learned friend HonAdele Farina was also a ……………
Hon ADELE FARINA: I would like to put on the record that I concur with the comments made by Hon Nick Goiran about the previous committee’s report. I do not concur with all his comments, but the ones that relate to the committee report. ……………………
Hon ALISON XAMON: I thank the members of the previous committee for their contributions. I want to make some comments representing the Greens, not speaking just as someone who has an interest in this or as a committee member, but to make it quite clear what my party’s position is on this. I note the original findings, particularly findings 1 and 2. Finding 1 states —
The Corruption and Crime Commission’s predecessor, the Anti-Corruption Commission, was an investigative body with no express power to prosecute.
Finding 2 states —
No express intent to empower the Corruption and Crime Commission to prosecute can be found in any debate during the passage of the Bills establishing the Commission in 2003.
I think that is really important. My former colleague Hon Giz Watson was in Parliament at the time the Corruption and Crime Commission was formed and she had plenty to say on the extraordinary powers that were attached to it. I want to put on the record that the Greens have strong policy grounds for not supporting the capacity for the CCC to prosecute. That was explicitly contemplated at the time that the legislation was established, which the Greens put on the record quite extensively at the time via Hon Giz Watson. I draw members’ attention to the quote on the first page in the original report from the committee of the thirty-ninth Parliament. It is a quote from Hon Len Roberts-Smith, RFD, QC, who was then the Corruption and Crime Commissioner. It states —
...it seems to me not to make much sense for us to be investigating something and to have gained all the evidence and then to have to send it to the police for them to go over it all and form a view about it and then send it on to the Director of Public Prosecutions, particularly if it is only a summary matter.
With respect, I do not think I could disagree more. I think it is quite important, particularly when we are talking about a body that has such extraordinary powers, that there is a separation between the collation of those powers and putting together that case, and ultimately having a fresh pair of eyes that can look at the evidence that has been put together. The nature of the matter that has been put together can be looked at and an independent determination can be made whether in fact the issue should be prosecuted or is able to be successfully prosecuted. I think it is very important that we resist any temptation to allow these sorts of bodies with extraordinary powers to ever be able to undertake prosecutions. That is a strongly held view that the Greens have held consistently and that the Greens continue to hold.
I have said before in this place that I think it is probably beyond time and would be incredibly helpful if at some point we could undertake an overall review of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act and make an assessment of the way that the Corruption and Crime Commission is currently structured to either confirm or change the way that it operates to see whether it still best meets the aims of trying to address issues of corruption within this state, whether it be the police, within the public sector or organised crime. Part of that would likely be the fact that pressure would be brought to bear to allow an investigatory body to also be able to have the power to prosecute.
In the context of this discussion, I thought that it was important to again put on the record, as the Greens have for the last 15 years, our strongly held view about the clear need to separate the extraordinary powers that come with a body such as the CCC and subsequently what happens around prosecutions.
I take on board the comments made by Hon Adele Farina about future reports. I note that my colleague on the committee Hon Jim Chown is also in the chamber and undoubtedly was also paying close attention. That is helpful feedback, so I appreciate that. I personally agree that it would be useful in order to facilitate a more fulsome discussion within the chamber.
I also thank the committee for taking the opportunity, particularly following the very significant decision of A v Maughan, to review overall the issue of the powers to prosecute. I am personally of the view that the two recommendations that arose from that inquiry were sensible and balanced. Hopefully, they will help to inform the discussion more fully into the future. We may discover that there is no problem at all and, in fact, that having an arms-length approach to prosecutions provides the necessary checks and balances to the extraordinary powers that I would very strongly argue are required.
The findings of this report were very interesting. Hon Adele Farina made the comment that this was an extensive inquiry and, frankly, that is apparent in looking at the comparisons between not only other jurisdictions, noting that around Australia, there is not an appetite to have similar bodies undertake prosecutions, but also international jurisdictions. I thank the committee for this work. I think it will help to inform the discussion in a really useful way moving forward. Hopefully, it will also be used at some point in the future to inform a comprehensive review of the CCM act.
Question put and passed.