A, A~. jS~ 4. A-4-4. V œ S4.
FOR MEDIA 28 July 1983
PRIME MINISTER
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
OPENING OF NATIONAL CRIMES CONFERENCE
28 JULY 1983,-CANBERRA
MAY I FIRST WELCOME ALL PRESENT TODAY AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENDA NCE. SOM~ E HAVE TRAVELLED CONSIDERABLE
DISTANCES TO BE HERE AND TO ADD YOUR COUNSEL TO OUR
DELIBERATIONS. FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF ALL WE ARE DEEPLY
GRATEFULWE MEET TODAY BECAUSE OF OUR SHARED CONCERN ABO-UT
THE EFFECTS OF ORGANISED CRIME ON THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITYWE
MEET IN RESPONSE TO THE GROWING ANXIETY THROUGHOUT THE
COMMU. JITY ON THIS MATTER AS A RESULT OF THE FINDINGS OF
NUMEROUS ROYAL COMMISSION'S AND OTHER ENQUIRIES-WE MEET NOT
ONLY TO GIVE EXPRESSION TO THAT CONCERN, BUT TO HELP CHART A
COURSE TO ENABLE US, AS A NATION, TO ERADICATE THE CANCER OF
ORGANISED CRIME.
THE DELIBERATIONS OF THIS CONFERENCE SHOULD, I
BELIEVE, BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF TWO
OBJECTIVES -THE STREN'GTHENING OF LAW ENF ORCEMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES. FOR AUSTRALIA -AND
EMPHATICALLY, FOR my GOVERNMENT.-THESE OBJECTIVES ARE OF
EQUAL IMPORTANCE-WE MUST NEVER ALLOW IT -ro BE ASSUMED THAT
THE TWO ARE INCOMPATIBLE. IN A FREE SOCIETY, VIGILANCE
AGAINST CRIME AND VIGILANCE AGAINST ENCROACHMENT UPON THE
RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUST GO HAND IN HAND.
7 717
2.
THEREFORE, I SUGGEST THE PRIMARY TASK OVER THE NEXT
TWO DAYS IS TO SEEK TO BALANCE TWO LEGITIMATE REQUIREMENTS
OF OUR SOCIETY: THE NEED FOR ACTION TO COMBAT NEW FORMS OF
CRIME, PARTICULARLY ORGANISED CRIME, AND THE NEED TO ENSURE
THAT ACTION TAKEN IN THIS DIRECTION DOES NOT JEOPARDISE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIESPERHAPS
AT THE OUTSET, THE MOST HELPFUL THING WOULD
BE FOR ME TO DECLARE my GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE TO THE
QUESTION OF A NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION. LET ME SAY THAT
OUR PRESENT DISPOSITION IS TO SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SUCH A COMMISSION AND TO SEE IT OPERATING FROM JANUARY 198' 4
AS A NATURAL AND CONTINUING SUCCESSOR TO THE COSTIGAN ROYAL
COMMISSION. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT COMMITTED TO IMPLEMENTING
THE FRASER GOVERNMENT'S NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION ACT 1982
IN IIS PRESENT FORM-AND I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT
WE HAVE MADE NO FINAL DECISION ABOUT ANY OF THE MATTERS TO
BE CONSIDERED BY THIS CONFERENCEIT
FOLLOWS FROM THAT THAT WE REGARD THIS CONFERENCE
AS A GENUINE CONSULTATIVE EXERCISE-WE ARE EAGER TO HEAR
ALL POINTS OF VIEW AND TO TAKE THEM UNDER FULL
CONSIDERATION. EQUALLY AS WITH ALL MATTERS OF HIGH-POLICY
-THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RETREAT FROM ITS
ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS-
9. n'JTPM4! ' rjvv" q
3.
A NUMBER OF ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE
G3REEN PAPER THAT WAS SENT TO YOU EARLIER AND, DURING THE
COURSE OF THE CONFERENCE, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO CONSIDER EACH.
OF THESE ISSUES OR BATCHES OF ISSUES IN DUE COURSE. AGAIN,
ISHOULD LIKE TO EMPHASISE THAT*, WHEN THE CONFERENCE. PASSES.
FROM ONE ISSUE OR BATCH OF ISSUES TO ANOTHER, IT IS NOT TO
BE INFERRED THAT THE CONFERENCE HAS MADE A DECISION ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER ON THE MATTER LAST DISCUSSEDWITH
A VIEW TO ASSISTING YOU IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS,
MAY I OBSERVE THAT IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF BEING " FOR" OR
it GIS'tACIE OMSIO; EEYHN
AGAINST"~ AIRMEESEECD DM ISO; EENNYWWAHAN
KIND OF CRIMES COMMISSION AND HOW THAT COMMISSION WILL
OPERATE. IT SEEMS TO ME THREE DISTINCT LEVELS OF QUESTIONS
NEED TO BE ASKED AND ANSWERED:
FIRST, IS THE PROBLEM OF ORGANISED AND
SOPHISTICATED CRIME SUCH THAT SOME FURTHER AND
BETTER INVESTIGATORY MACHINERY THAN WE HAVE AT
PRESENT IS NEEDED TO COPE WITH IT?
SECONDLY, IF THE ANSWER IS " YES", IS THE CONCEPT OF
THE STANDING CRIMES COMMISSION PREFERABLE TO
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES,-INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR
I
UPGRADING THE POWERS AND CAPACITY OF THE POLICE,
AND CONTINUING AD Hoc ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND
ENQUIRIESTHIRDLY, IF A NATIONAL CRIMES COMMI. SSION IS THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, WHAT SHOULD THE PRECISE
FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND COMPOSITION OF THAT
COMMISSION BE?
AS TO THE FIRST TWO OF THESE QUESTIONS THE
THRESHOLD QUESTIONS THE GOVERNMENT IS INCLINED TO SAY
" IYES" It, BUT AGAIN I STRESS THAT NO FINAL DECISIONS HAVE BEEN
TAKEN IN THIS AREA-WE ARE OPEN TO MODIFYING OUR POSITION
IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS CONFERENCE.
AS TO THE THIRD QUESTION ABOUT THE POWERS AND
COMPOSITION OF A COMMISSION THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE
GREATLY ASSISTED IN REACHING DECISIONS ON THESE MATTERS BY
THE VIEWS* EXPRESSED AT THIS CONFERENCE.
IT SEEMS TO US THAT ON THIS THIRD QUESTIONFUNCTIONS,
POWERS AND COMPOSITION OF A NATIONAL CRIMES
COMMISSION TWO PARTICULARLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUES ARISETHE
FIRST AND UNDOUBTEDLY THE MOST CONTENTIOUS
SINGLE QUESTION ABOUT A CRIMES COMMISSION IS WHAT SHOULD BE
ITS PRINCIPAL ROLE-IS IT TO IDENTIFY AND EXPOSE ORGANISED
AND SOPHISTICATED CRIME; OR IS IT TO PACKAGE OR HELP PACKAGE
THE KIND OF ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE THAT WILL LEAD TO CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONSTHERE IS. ONE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT THAT THE CRIMES
COMMISSION SHOULD DIRECT ITS ACTIVITIES TO THE GATHERING AN* D
ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SO THAT IT CAN IDENTIFY TO
THE ORDINARY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES PERSONS SUSPECTED OF
CRIMINAL OFFENCES, PARTICULARLY MEMBERS OF CRIMINAL
A ORGANIZATIONS, THEIR ASSOCIATES AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITIESTHESE
AGENCIES WOULD HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PREPARING
THE BRIEF TO PROSECUTE AND TAKING PROSECUTION ACTION. FOR
THE COMMISSION TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A ROLE, WOULD BE, IT IS
SUGGESTED, TO SUPPLANT THE POLICE FORCEONE
EXAMPLE OF A COMMISSION WHICH HAS OPERATED
SUCCESSFULLY ON THESE LINES IS THE COSTIGAN ROYAL
COMMISSION. FROM A COMMONWEALTH REVENUE VIEWPOINT, THAT
COMMISSION APPEARS TO HAVE PAID ITS WAY.
THERE IS HOWEVER A CONTrRARY VIEW, NAMELY THAT THE
CRIMES COMMISSION SHOULD-GO BEYOND MERELY IDENTIFYING
OFFENCES AND SHOULD ASSEMBLE EVIDENCE WITH A VIEW TO ; THE
PROSECUTION OF OFFENDERS.
IF THIS APPROACH IS ADOPTED, THE-COMMISSION WOULD
NOT BE EXPECTED TO ASSEMBLE ALL THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR
6.
THE PROSECUTION BRIEF IN THE PARTICULAR CASE AND OF COURSE
THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT NEED TO GET INVOLVED ITSELF IN
PURSUING PROSECUTIONS OF EVERY OFFENDER THAT THE COMMISSION
COMES ACROSS-IT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO EXERCISE THIS ROLE
ONLY IN A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL NUMB-ER OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION CASES, AND THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSULT
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, SOON TO BE ESTABLISHED,
IN THE CHOICE OF CASES IN WHICH THE COMMISSION WERE TO
EXERCISE THIS ROLECOMMONWEALTH AND STATE GOVERNMENTS IN THE PAST HAVE
SOMETIMES BEEN FACED WITH RECEIVING REPORTS FROM ROYAL
COMMISSIONS SUGGESTING THAT IDENTIFIED PERSONS HAVE BEEN
GUILTY OF VARIOUS OFFENCES BUT FINDING SUBSEQUENTLY THAT THE
EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE COMMISSION IS INSUFFICIENT OR
INADE. QUATE FOR SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS-THE VIEW IS PUT
THAT GOOD GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ARE NOT SATISFIED BY MERELY
IDENTIFYING OR NAMING OF PERSONS IN REPORTS OF A COMMISSION
IF THIS ACTION IS NOT FOLLOWED BY THE CONVICTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THESE PERSONS. THE PROBLEM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
BODIES IS FREQUENTLY NOT JUST THE IDENTIFICATION OF
SUSPECTED OFFENDERS BUT RATHER THE OBTAINING OF SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THEIR CONVICTION.
YOU WILL NO DOUBT WISH TO GIVE CAREFUL AND DETAILED
CO. NSIDERATION TO THIS DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT ISSUE.
K 7.
THE SECOND CONTENTIOUS ISSUE IS WHETHER THE EXCUSE
OF SELF-INCRIMINATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO A WITNESS
QUESTIONED BY THE CRIMES COMMISSION. THIS ISSUE APPEARS TO
BE CLOSELY RELATED TO THE QUESTION JUST MENTIONED WHETHER
THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD EXTEND TO THE ASSEMBLING
OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.
THE EXCUSE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO WITNESSES BEFORE A
ROYAL COMMISSION BUT ITS ABSENCE IS BALANCED BY PROVISIONS
TO MAKE A WITNESS IS ANSWERS INADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIM EXCEPT
IN A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS
BALANCE OF PROVISIONS IS THAT THE FUNCTION OF A ROYAL
COMMISSION FOCUSSES ON ASCERTAINING THE FULL FACTS OF A,
PARTICULAR MATTER AND NOT ON THE PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE OF
ASSEMBLING EVIDENCE FOR PROSECUTIONS.
HOWEVER, IF THE ROLE OF THE CRIMES COMMISSION IS TO
EXTEND TO ASSEMBLING OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION, QUITE
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS APPLYTHE
INTENTION WOULD THEN BE THAT THE EVIDENCE
GIVEN BY A WITNESS WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR USE IN SUBSEQUENT
P ROCEEDINGS WHETHER AGAINST HIM OR SOME OTHER PERSON. THAT
BEING SO, LONG ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES APPEAR TO REQUIRE THAT
THE EXCUSE OF SELF-INCRIMINATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE
WITNESS-
8.
WHETHER THE EXCUSE OF SELF-INCRIMINATION SHOULD
APPLY TO DOCUMENTS IS ONE MATTER ON WHICH THERE APPEAR TO BE
PARTICULARLY STRONG DIFFERENCES OF OPINION-ON THE ONE HAND
IS THE VIEW THAT PURSUIT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD BE A
VITAL PART OF THE CRIMES COMMISSION'S ACTIVITIES-ON THE
OTHER, IS THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
COMMISSION'S ROLE OF ASSEMBLING EVIDENCE FOR PROSECUTION FOR
A WITNESS TO BE DEPRIVED OF THIS EXCUSEAS
A RESULT OF AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE NATIONAL
CRIMES COMMISSON ACT DURING THE COURSE OF ITS PASSAGE
THROUGH PARLIAMENT, THE EXCUSE UNDER THE ACT IS CONFINED TO
NATURAL PERSONSHOWEVER, BEFORE DEVOTING TOO MUCH TIME, ENERGY AND
EMOTLON TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IT MIGHT BE WISE, I
SUGGEST,, TO EXAMINE WHETHER APPLICATION OF THE EXCUSE TO
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY NATURAL PERSONS WILL HAVE ANY
REAL PRACTICAL EFFECTTHESE ARE'NOT OF COURSE THE ONLY CONTENTIOUS
ISSUES. THERE ARE QUITE A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE
TO SOME DEGREE CONTENTIOUS; TO MENTION SOME, THE WIDTH OF
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTON, WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD
IDENTIFY SUSPECTED OFFENDERS IN ITS PUBLIC REPORTS,
ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE COMMISSION, WHETHER THE COMMISSION
SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE HEADED BY A JUDGE AND THE ROLE OF
THE STATES AND THE NORTHERN TERRITORY. A 7 k_"
9.
AS TO THIS LAST MENTIONED ISSUE, CLEARLY THE MOST
SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENT SO FAR AS LAW ENFORCEMENT * GENERALLY
IN AUSTRALIA IS CONCERNED IS TO HAVE FULL PARTICIPATION BY
THE STATES AND THE NORTHERN TERRITORY IN THE WORKING OF THE
CRIMES COMMISSIONSHOULD THE STATES WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
COMMISSION, THE EXISTING ACT PROVIDES FOR TWO POSSIBLE WAYS
BY WHICH THIS CAN BE DONE.
FIRST, THE COMMISION CAN BE EMPOWERED BY A STATE
LAW TO EXERCISE FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO BREACHES OF STATE
LAWS CORRESPONDING TO THOSE IT WILL EXERCISE UNDER THE ACT
IN RELATION TO BREACHES OF COMMONWEALTH LAWSSECOND,
A STATE GOVERNOR OR MINISTER CAN CONFER,
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
PARTICULAR FUNCTIONS OR POWERS ON A MEMBER OR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION. THUS, IF THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY-GENERAL
CONSENTS, A STATE GOVERNMENT WOULD APPOINT ONE OR MORE
MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL CRIMES COMMISSION As ROYAL
COMMISSIONERS FOR STATE PURPOSES AND THESE PERSONS COULD
EXERCISE STATE FUNCTIONS CONJOINTLY WITH THEIR COMMONWEALTH
FUNCTIONS BUT, SO FAR AS STATE FUNCTIONS WERE CONCERNED,$
WITHIN THE LIMITS SPECIFIED BY THE STATE.
My GOVERNMENT HOPES THAT STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL
FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE* WORKINGS OF THE CRIMES COMMISSIONTO
THIS END, WE ARE KEEN TO DISCUSS WITH STATE GOVERNMENTS
WAYS AND MEANS BY WHICH THIS MAY BE DONE-IF ANY INTERESTED.
PARTIES WISH TO ADVANCE DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONFERENCE
WAYS AND MEANS OF FACILITATING STATE PARTICIPATION THEY
SHOULD BY ALL MEANS DO SO AND THEIR SUGGESTIONS WILL BE VERY
CAREFULLY CONSIDEREDWE SHOULD NOT THINK THAT A CRIMES COMMISSION WILL
BE A PANACEA FOR ORGANIZED CRIME. ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRIMES
COMMISSION WOULD ONLY BE ONE PART, ALTHOUGH A VERY IMPORTANT
PART, OF A PACKAGE SO FAR AS THE FIGHT AGAINST ORGANIZED.
CRIME IS CONCERNED-
. GOVERNMENTS NEED TO ADDRESS THIS FIGHT AT ALL
LEVELS RANGING FROM REVIEWING AND UP-GRADING POLICE
RESOURCES TO MODERNIZING THE CRIMINAL LAW AND THE PROCEDURES
OF THE COURTS TO MINIMIZE DELAYS IN THE BRINGING OF
OFFENDERS TO JUSTICE. IN REVIEWING THE LAW WE NEED TO BE
CONSCIOUS OF THE NEED TO REMOVE FROM THE STATUTE BOOK ANY
OFFENCES THAT THE COMMUNITY NO LONGER CONSIDERS
REPREHENSIBLETHE OBJECTIVE OF ALL OF US GATHERED HERE AT THIS
CONFERENCE IS THE PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY FROM
HARMFUL DEVELOPMENTS IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH RECOGNISE
NO BOUNDARIES, STATE OR NATIONAL. THERE IS A PUBLIC
EXPECTATION THAT THIS CONFERENCE WILL ACHIEVE SIGNIFICANT
RESULTS IN CLEARING THE GROUND FOR EFFECTIVE ACTION IN THIS
REGARD AND WE MUST TRY TO ENSURE THAT THOSE EXPECTATIONS ARE
NOT DISAPPOINTEDWHILE AGREEMENT IN EVERY DETAIL CANNOT REASONABLY
BE EXPECTED IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS, AND WHILE TODAY IS NOT AN
OCCASION NOR THIS CONFERENCE A FORUM APPROPRIATE FOR FORMAL
DECISION-MAKING, I HOPE AND TRUST THAT, BEARING THE ULTIMATE
OBJECTIVE IN MIND, NONETHELESS, A CONSIDERABLE MEASURE OF
CONSENSUS WILL EMERGE HERE AS TO THE ACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
TAKEN BY ALL AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS. AIDED BY THAT COUNISEL,
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS WILL, I BELIEVE, BE GREATLY ASSISTED
IN REACHING THEIR DECISIONS AS TO ACTION TO BE TAKEN TO
FIGHT THE INSIDIOUS GROWTH OF ORGANIZED CRIME IN OUR
COUNTRY-