Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Legislative arrangements to outlaw serious and organised crime groups

CHAIR —I welcome representatives from the Police Federation of Australia, Mr Mark Burgess and Mr Jon Hunt-Sharman, as our final witnesses for today. I invite you to make a brief opening statement, at the conclusion of which members of the committee will ask you some questions.

Mr Burgess —Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the inquiry. We have had an opportunity to read a number of the submissions to the inquiry as well as some of the transcripts from earlier hearings that you have had. Today we would like to pick up on two key points that we have ascertained from those transcripts and submissions.

Firstly, what we see, and have picked up in our submission, is the actual lack of consistency in legislation across jurisdictions. Having read some of the transcripts, it appears that not only is there a lack of consistency but there is a lack of agreement about how we develop some model laws to go forward, which is certainly a concern to us. Incorporated in that is the issue of unexplained wealth, which we have picked up from some of the questions that have been asked by the committee itself. Secondly, we also believe there are a number of areas where there are current shortcomings in federal legislation, and Jon will particularly pick up on those issues.

As a result of those observations, we want to make four recommendations to the committee, which we have just handed up. Would you like me to read those onto the Hansard?

CHAIR —We will accept them.

Mr Burgess —That is basically our opening statement. If you like, we could elaborate on some of those points or just take questions from the committee. We are in your hands.

CHAIR —Thank you. Mr Hunt-Sharman, did you want to say anything at this stage?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —Not at this stage, thank you.

Mr HAASE —For recommendation 1 that you have made—establishing a working group—can you outline how you see that would operate, having regard to the fact that in the past the police ministers council has proved determined to have a degree of uniformity in their legislation, but I do not think that has eventuated as yet. How would you see this working group actually proceeding?

Mr Burgess —It needs to be a group that is representative of all the jurisdictions, bearing in mind that is where the stumbling block appears to be in views about what type of legislation is required. In our original written submission we actually talked about the process of using the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General as a possible avenue, and obviously you have just raised the issue of the police component of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management.

I suppose what we believe is that, to actually progress this in a way that is going to be meaningful to all of us, it is incumbent upon us to actually set up a working group that can actually deliver what we after. That is not to say that some of those other committees could not, but we need the right people around the table. We need the right goodwill to try and achieve what we are setting out to do. We need people with the relevant experience and expertise in those areas. As we said, that group would look at and talk to relevant stakeholders, and we have raised a number of those in the submission: the DPP police jurisdictions, the employee organisations—and, obviously, the wider community is going to need to be consulted. You talked to people from the tax office earlier. There is a whole range of those that need to be involved in the process. But to actually get it to happen, we need to clearly identify the appropriate people to be part of the working party.

Mr HAYES —You have probably seen from the evidence so far that many of the Police Commissioners and representatives appearing before this body have had quite disparate views about what sort of legislation should go forward. Perhaps their views reflect to a certain extent the—dare I say?—political masters in those states and territories. As far as having this as a genuinely representative body, how do we get to the true police professionals, if you like—those who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of these laws? I imagine that the same people are frustrated by the levels of inconsistency between state and territory application of law.

Mr Burgess —I suppose the one real way to do it is through MCPEM, the Ministerial Council on Police and Emergency Management. Bear in mind that you would then ensure that you had buy-in from the respective police jurisdictions. With all due respect, a recommendation from this committee will not necessarily compel a state jurisdiction to be involved in such a process. For us, it is disappointing that we have not got that consistency regarding a matter that is so important to policing and to the whole of the Australian community—serious and organised crime. Jon Hunt-Sharman and I specifically talk from the police professionals’ perspective. We think it is somewhat of an embarrassment for our profession that we have not been able to get to that stage.

Mr Hunt-Sharman —We certainly see the Commonwealth as taking the leading role in this body so that it can consult with the other jurisdictions but can also start creating the model legislation. Of course, if it is enacted at the federal level, it can be used by any constable of any police force because federal legislation is not limited to what police force you come from, as you know. That is a starting point. If you can get agreement or at least majority agreement, some model legislation will be put in place for that to be adopted by the other jurisdictions.

Mr HAYES —I think we saw some success with the DNA database being initiated and facilitated federally and then being mirrored in each state and territory. Is that the style of approach and process that you think the Commonwealth should have buy-in in leading towards uniformity of serious and organised crime legislation?

Mr Burgess —Jon is right. Our mantra is: we are not asking the Commonwealth to take ownership of a whole range of things in policing, but we are asking the Commonwealth to take some leadership. I think it really is the role of the Commonwealth to do that and to try to encourage the states and territories to come along. Of course, we talked about a working group because it puts it to a level in our organisations where the right people with the right expertise who have the ear of senior police, at least, can talk authoritatively on behalf of their jurisdiction. They should ultimately be able to come up with something, at least through the initial process of reviewing all the current legislation, that looks at international best practice and specifically reviews the South Australian model—because that is what is being discussed by a lot of people. Is that the perfect model? We do not have an answer for you on that. What would be the ideal model for us to implement across all about jurisdictions? We need the right police—the right people with the right skills—to be able to do that sort of role.

Mr HAYES —Do you say the same thing in relation to unexplained wealth legislation?

Mr Burgess —We think unexplained wealth legislation can very easily be picked up in this process. It is in several states now. It is operating very effectively. It is certainly a good tool. For example, it has been used very successfully in the Northern Territory. I know some people may have some concerns about aspects of it. In line with that, the committee would probably be aware, particularly from the Commonwealth’s perspective, that we have previously argued and suggested to government that it would be appropriate for some parliamentary oversight of the AFP. If you as a committee were talking about moving down the road of strengthening those sorts of laws in the Commonwealth then you would have our support in that process obviously but you would also have our support for the process of oversight of the AFP, so that would be about how some of that legislation was used.

Mr HAYES —I suppose we have increased the powers significantly of the AFP, particularly in how the AFP can liaise with other jurisdictions. I think you are right that at this stage they do not come under the same parliamentary oversight as, say, the ACC.

Mr Burgess —That is right. Just getting back to unexplained wealth, our understanding is that the Northern Territory legislation is working very well. It is pretty much modelled off Western Australia’s but, as we understand it, it is somewhat more simplified. There is a reverse onus of proof. As I understand it, on many occasions when people are brought in for questioning about unexplained wealth, rather than implicate themselves in more crime, sometimes these things are not even contested. There is no criminality attached to it, if you understand that. I think there are some great opportunities in this to use some specific pieces of legislation that can go a long way towards fighting serious and organised crime in this country.

Mr Hunt-Sharman —As Mark said, we have already got unexplained wealth legislation in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. New South Wales and South Australia are now talking about introducing unexplained wealth as amendments to their legislation. Queensland are looking at reversing the onus of proof in regards to unexplained wealth because they have already got it in their legislation. It seems to us it is an ideal opportunity to bring in a modelled piece of legislation because everyone is going down that path right now. Some are already there and some are on the way.

We can go back to the fact that the Commonwealth is the signatory to the convention against transnational crime. It has also agreed with the 1997 Interpol General Assembly which has recognised unexplained wealth as a legitimate subject of inquiry for law enforcement institutions in their efforts to detect criminal activity and, subject to fundamental principles of each country’s domestic laws, legislators should reverse the burden of proof in respect of unexplained wealth. At the Commonwealth level we have not got unexplained wealth legislation, yet here we are signing up to these conventions and so forth.

Mark raised it earlier, but we ask why unexplained wealth declaration is so effective. Do Australian police know who is involved in organised and serious crime in Australia? Do we know who they are? The answer is yes. Can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that these criminals are involved directly in those crimes? The answer is no. Are we aware that these criminals possess or have effective control of unexplained wealth? The answer is yes. Can these criminals or those holding the assets and wealth for these criminals explain on the balance of probability that they legally obtained that wealth or assets? The answer is no. We do not have to link anything to a crime. It is about them on the balance of probability explaining that they have got legally obtained wealth.

Again, the reality is—and I am sure this has come out from other witnesses—when you are talking about organised crime it is almost impossible to charge anyone. We have not got any legislation in Australia to deal with that at the Commonwealth level. There are big issues with conspiracy. That is the only charge available at the federal level that can try to pick up an organised crime syndicate. Of course, one of those individuals in the agreement has to have done an overt act in regards to the crime.

If you are talking about the Mr Biggs sitting behind the scene, the ones planning and financing these things, there is no connection. At the other end, where you have, if you like, the workers—the people who are involved in the criminal activity at the lower end—they are not aware of the conspiracy and they are often doing one specific criminal task or they are doing what would be seen as low-level tasks, but the reality is that is making up that whole criminal syndicate, and they do not get charged. So we have clearly got a problem there.

One of the real concerns, if you take the Bali Nine, we do not have any offence in federal criminal legislation to cover recruiting, either by servitude or through monetary bondage. In other words, if someone owes money to the syndicate or if they are a drug addict, being the couriers to bring the drugs in, there is no offence sitting over here to be able to charge someone at a much higher level with regard to penalties for recruiting those people. To some extent they are victims as well, if you are talking about when they are being trapped into carrying out these acts.

We get back to the issue of unexplained wealth. The bottom line is that we know these criminals have got the wealth in different locations with different people. There is a lot of intelligence and data held by police with regard to these organised crime groups. Unexplained wealth is the easiest way as a crime prevention method to stop further crime, because, if the individuals who are holding onto these assets cannot explain them, as Mark said, the tendency is to just hand it over because they do not want to get into a debate about whether they are involved in criminality or not.

Ms LEY —You suggested in your submission that there are difficulties in the sharing of information between the ACC and the states. Could you expand on that a bit and how you think it might be able to be improved.

Mr Burgess —Again, it comes back to the notion of a greater synergy across all of our jurisdictions. If there is one thing that committees hear from us when we come here on a whole range of fronts it is the frustration about how we make those sorts of things work—how we have seamless transitions between state and federal on a whole range of fronts, including laws and the sharing of information. That is a big challenge for us. We have grown up in a jurisdictional mentality, if that makes sense, but the world is now a small place. So I think it is incumbent upon us to ensure—and certainly your committee has got some ability to do this—that there is a greater, as I said, synergy between the ACC, the states, the AFP and also the Northern Territory. That is not to suggest it is not there. Please do not take me wrongly. I am not saying it does not happen, but we often hear that there are some issues about coordination and cooperation at times and information sharing across jurisdictions.

Ms LEY —Are you comfortable with the level of investigative power of the ACC and the quality of the investigative process, given that it is not conducted by sworn police officers?

Mr Burgess —We have a view—

Ms LEY —Or in their presence—in conjunction with them, not necessarily by them.

Mr Burgess —We are quite interested in some comments that were made recently by the Minister for Home Affairs about a review of the ACC. I am not sure where that it is up to at this stage. We certainly would have some comments about how that should be undertaken.

Ms LEY —Just on that, what would you like to see in the terms of reference?

Mr Burgess —We actually have not devoted any time to that. I will go back to your issue about the sworn police. When we made our original submissions in 2004, I think—NCA to ACC days—we were quite up front about the issues about having proper sworn police trained, effective police officers fulfilling those functions, seconded from state, territory and Federal Police agencies, to fulfil those roles. I could go into another debate which I have only just left in Sydney about the professionalisation of policing and the training that is required for someone to fulfil those sorts of functions.

We have some concerns that not all of the functions of the ACC are being carried out by sworn police officers. You will recall that last year or the year before there was a proposal for some legislative amendments with respect to search warrants at the ACC whereby, whilst a sworn officer would have to take out the search warrant, they could give the search warrant to a non-sworn person to execute. We had grave concerns about that. That aspect of the bill was removed. Getting back to the terms of reference, they are a number of the areas that we would like to talk to the government about—about how we make sure that the ACC is the effective body we always wanted it to be and, I think I can say on behalf of the rest of the Australian community, that it deserves to be.

Ms LEY —Do you have any comment to make on how the latest round of budget cuts has affected the ability of the AFP and police forces generally to carry out their tasks?

Mr Burgess —I would not talk on behalf of the AFP. We have not had any specific feedback at this stage from the ACC, but I am assuming that like everybody else they have had cuts; I have not actually had that conversation with the ACC. In the current climate, I suppose, most of us are going to have to tighten our belts in some way, but we have to be mindful that we do not restrict the important activities of the ACC. That is one of the responsibilities that I would suggest this committee has.

Mr Hunt-Sharman —With regard to the Federal Police, it has had a major effect. We certainly are of the view that the efficiency dividend should not relate to operational matters and should relate to the administration of the organisation. The difficulty with the approach that has been put in place is that the AFP has been, for want of a better word, an efficient machine for some time. It is hard to keep on taking cuts to the organisation when you have moved into a very efficient model in the first place. So my only recommendation there would be that, if there were consideration, we would certainly be accepting of a halfway model, if you like, that has the efficiency dividend with regard to the non-operational side of the AFP.

Ms LEY —Are you comfortable with the timetable of delivery for the 500 new officers?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —We certainly are. These are difficult times, and we realise that. Fortunately the government, when allocating the funding, budgeted into the latter years because there was concern about the future economic environment. It is certainly our view that in a few years time things should be back on track and it will be the right time for the extra numbers of sworn police officers.

Mr Burgess —Like everybody, we would have liked it upfront, without a doubt, but we accepted the arguments given by the government at the time.

Mr WOOD —With the budget cutbacks, I have heard privately, and today we had confirmation from the ACC, that as part of these cuts a number of their staff members who were sworn members of various police force agencies have had to go back to their various state jurisdictions and that there have been morale issues and issues where investigations have been put on hold and other investigations have not even been looked at into the future, simply because of the workload. Are you saying you have not heard anything from any state members complaining about being recalled?

Mr Burgess —At this stage, that is the first I have heard of that. That is of concern to us because our view has always been, as I think you would be well aware, that the model that we put forward was a model that by and large staffed the ACC with properly trained, accredited, sworn police officers from the jurisdictions, for a whole range of reasons, not the least of which was to enhance their skills that they could take back to their home jurisdictions over time. But, if they are now sending state police officers back to their home jurisdictions due to budget cuts, I suppose the question would be: who is actually fulfilling the function within the ACC? That is a concern to us, and certainly it is an issue that we will take up when we leave here.

Mr WOOD —That is the situation. The evidence we have received has been of 50 positions being cut, not necessarily all members going back to state jurisdictions. At the same time, I will direct the question to Mr Hunt-Sharman regarding the AFP. There has been talk today of redundancy packages offered. Have you heard how many of those have been offered? What has been the effect on tackling ongoing and serious organised crime?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —To answer your question, I am not the AFP, but I can give you my knowledge. I think there have been about 150 redundancies. Out of that number, I think probably around 60 were serving police officers. So when we talk about the issue of future police numbers as in the 500 net additional police, we are already 60 down and, of course, a lot of those were experienced police officers. But, again, the books have to be balanced and that is the outcome. I reiterate that I think if we can move to the efficiency dividend not covering operational areas of the AFP it would assist.

Mr Burgess —There were no forced redundancies in that figure.

Mr WOOD —No, that is the evidence being—

Mr Burgess —But you raise a valid point. We are very conscious of AFP numbers and we have been for some time, particularly AFP sworn numbers. We will be, I guarantee, holding the government to account on sworn numbers in the AFP.

Mr WOOD —I suppose this is a loaded question because I know the answer already. If you have an ongoing investigation where you are taking investigators away from the investigation to go back to state operations, what would be the morale problems and the investigative problems of losing that experience on that particular investigation? What would be the outcome of that?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —With the Australian Federal Police, obviously we have another problem. There were additional functions added on to the AFP particularly after September 11, 2001. We became thin in numbers with regard to what I suppose you would call the traditional crime types—the narcotics and fraud investigations, organised crime investigations and so forth—because we also had to pick up a lot of the national security issues and also regional issues with the International Deployment Group. As an organisation, we have been, if you like, catching up on the extra roles that the organisation was given. So the government’s commitment for the additional 500 is for them to go into the national investigative areas covering fraud, drugs, people smuggling and so forth. With regard to our numbers, if you take away the ACT policing numbers, the International Deployment Group numbers and aviation and protection, you start to get down to a very small number of people who are actually there doing investigations into major criminal organisations and groups.

Mr WOOD —With regard to the cutbacks to the Australian Federal Police, do you have a dollar value for the cutbacks? We were talking about efficiency gains of two or three per cent. Do you know how many millions of dollars that is?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —No, I do not have the figures on that.

Mr Burgess —Part of the concern that we have always had with this and why we lobbied for the additional police in the AFP was the knock-on effect that it has to the states. The states, for example, as you are probably aware, are in essence carrying out the community policing function at the 11 counterterrorism airports. So the 300 plus police that are there, albeit in AFP uniform, are predominantly state police. There is also the assistance that is given with respect to the IDG. I think there is in excess of 100 state police in the IDG. We are not opposed to all this stuff, but the knock-on effect actually hurts the states. So particularly in the area of airports we have said that that is a responsibility of the Commonwealth that should be done by the AFP. The states should not have to be providing the surge capacity for the AFP. So further cutbacks are going to exacerbate that problem.

Mr WOOD —Have you heard about budget cutbacks for air marshals?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —I cannot comment on that for a number of reasons—I am not the AFP.

Mr WOOD —I was just asking in general, but thank you.

Mr Hunt-Sharman —There is certainly a general rumour in the media and so forth that there are cutbacks.

CHAIR —We have had the benefit of speaking to a number of senior and junior officers in the conduct of our inquiry, and a number of bits of discussion have been about the South Australian legislation. There is no uniformity amongst the forces across the country about whether this will be effective or not. In fact, the Victorian police are quite adamant it will not be effective. Other forces have said that it will displace biker groups out of South Australia to other states, and there seems to be a bit of evidence that it is starting to occur. Does the federation have a view on the South Australian legislation?

Mr Burgess —We do not at this stage. We are getting a full presentation on that ourselves next week because it is obviously of interest to the other respective jurisdictions. If I can go back, I suppose the disappointing part for us is that it appears the responses by the various jurisdictions are somewhat piecemeal, that individuals are having dialogue with South Australia and making determinations as opposed to what we are suggesting, which is to get a collective group of people from all across the jurisdictions to look at those areas in totality and try and come back with what is the best and most workable model for all of us. You are right. Potentially, if no-one else enacts any legislation or anything that has any teeth—and the South Australian legislation is now in place—then it has a potential to displace. That is probably only natural, and some states could suffer as a result of that. So whilst we do not have a specific view on the South Australian legislation, we are in the process of having a full presentation given to us next week about that and hopefully we will be far better placed to make more informed comment.

Mr Hunt-Sharman —One important thing is that when you are looking at the convention against transnational crime, the fact is that it is talking about organised crime. It is not talking about outlawing motorcycle gangs. The Commonwealth has ratified this legislation and when you are looking at some of the comments from witnesses, with respect, they have simplified what the organised crime groups are into—what they see, hear and fear. In actual fact, the organised crime syndicates in Australia are far more complex, far more covert, far more sophisticated, and as far as we are concerned the eye has gone off the ball in one sense. This is about whether we have proper legislation in place to fight organised crime groups in Australia—and at the Commonwealth level we have not.

If you look at the organised crime syndicates in Australia, the majority of them are involved in transnational and national activities across borders. If you look at what for the general public are the most transparent organised crime groups in Australia, a good example is the ones that are involved with illicit drug importations and supply of illicit drugs. But probably the most covert and non-transparent lot, as far as the public is concerned, are white-collar organised crime syndicates. Corporation crime is an interesting one because, even from the previous witnesses, there is almost a tendency that these mistakes are made honestly by people in regard to their business activities, that somehow they did not realise they were defrauding or whatever. That might be true for some—even for the majority of people—but the reality is that white-collar, organised crime groups are using corporations as the weapon to commit the crime, so you are looking at not just committing frauds but also the concealment of the illegal profits. You have the legitimate companies being used as the supply chain for the illegal goods, so the corporation itself is a vehicle of crime.

If you start looking at white-collar crime or organised crime, the reality again is that we have problems with our legislation. If you speak to ASIC, ITSA or the AFP, drug importation and corporate crime are federal crimes, but our legislation is built around individual criminals doing something wrong, not a crime syndicate or a criminal enterprise.

It is well-known that there is a model out there involving corrupt lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. I am not talking about the banking world; I am talking about those where they are borrowing money at high interest rates because they cannot get loans anywhere else. Organised crime is right into these finance groups. What happens is that the individual goes along and is told, ‘Invest with us,’ or: ‘We’ll loan you the money. Yes, it is a high interest rate but don’t worry; we’ll balance that with taking a portion of your profits.’ They will create this thing but they will say, ‘Don’t just trust us; you go and get an accountant to have a look at it.’ They target people who will say, ‘I haven’t got an accountant at the moment.’ Then they say, ‘We’ve got one for you. Go and see so and so.’ So they go to that accountant and that accountant tells them: ‘You have to get legal advice on this. It’s good, so go and get some legal advice.’ So they go and get legal advice from another person who is part of the criminal syndicate. The result is that these people lose their property and their businesses to the organised crime syndicates. They use standover tactics to get money that is owed and then the assets are seized by these criminal enterprises. It is insidious.

The reality is that that is the true type of organised crime that is also out there. Bikies may be used to assist them but, again, it is higher level organised crime. The point I am making with regard to organised crime legislation at the Commonwealth level is that there is none, we need it and there are ample examples of the areas we are talking about—drug importation, drug supply and, of course, corporate crime. You have only to look at what is happening in America at the moment. There is ample evidence that there is significant fraud there as well. It is something to be wary of. It happens in Australia a lot, and I can talk about that later.

CHAIR —You were saying that people are targeted. Are there particular industries that are targeted, such as real estate, transport or customs brokers?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —What I have seen from some of these syndicates is that they pick on the sick, the weak and the greedy. I think there is logic behind that. It is about them not getting in the box to give evidence against them later down the track, or, if they do, they will be a poor witness for whatever reason. A lot of these people are desperate—they have their own small business or their own property and cannot cover a mortgage—so they borrow from these groups, which look, on the face of it, as if they are legitimate financial businesses but in actual fact are just a front. They either will have people put money in by borrowing or actually get people to put money into these businesses as well. Next minute the business goes insolvent, there are no assets there, the individuals have not got the money to chase it in court and, of course, you cannot follow the link. This is why I mentioned ITSA and ASIC.

The problem is that you have to try and follow the assets in regard to that legislation. If it is going into trusts, if it is going overseas into a tax haven and then back, as in the process of money laundering, you cannot identify it for the purpose of a charge. The end result is going back to the unexplained wealth argument. We know where these assets are. They are just sitting with other people or they are sitting in family trusts. But this is where these organised crime groups are.

They are not nice people. I have got an example. I am not going to name the individual but I want to give you an idea of an alleged organised crime figure in Sydney. I am quite happy to hand up some newspaper articles and some public reports from ASIC on this person. The alleged organised crime figure in Sydney is suspected of using an outlaw motorcycle gang member to blow up a property. He is convicted of assault and suspected of organising other assaults for extortion purposes. He is convicted of the heroin supply. He is suspected of cocaine supply. He is suspected of money laundering of millions of dollars. He is suspected of having a witness murdered the day before court. He is subject to multiple bankruptcies and subject to multiple deregistration of companies of which he has had effective control. He has been subject to multiple deregistration as a director. He is currently suspected of extorting $1 million from one person and $15 million from another in two separate cases by threatening to kill the victims and the children and the wife. What is the person still doing? He is still there. Other companies are now running in place of the ones that existed before. He sees himself as untouchable from the police. One of the comments that he has made publicly goes along lines of: ‘I have been in jail. I have been bankrupt. But the cops and the authorities will never get me because I have got deeper pockets than them. I have always owned two Rolls Royces, one a convertible for the sunny days.’

CHAIR —If you could hand up that information that you have offered, it would be welcome.

Mr Hunt-Sharman —It just gives you a general idea of what these people are like. They operate at a different layer and are very covert in their activities. I have probably spoken enough on that.

Ms LEY —It would not just require federal legislation about organised crime; it would require ASIC and ITSA related white collar reform to that legislation as well? Or do you think that there could be an ability to bring back what you have just described under a head of power for organised crime federally?

Mr Hunt-Sharman —Yes, particularly after the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, to which we are signatories. We need specific organised crime legislation, hopefully including unexplained wealth amendments to the Proceed of Crime Act, to attack these groups because the current legislation does not cater for the way an organised crime syndicate works.

CHAIR —If there are no further questions, thank you very much for coming along today. We would welcome the federation’s view on the South Australia legislation when you get one. I would like to thank all the witnesses who have given evidence today. The next public hearing of the committee will be tomorrow in Brisbane.

Committee adjourned at 3.58 pm