PROPOSED laws that would empower the Australian Crime Commission to share information with the private sector could lead to people being unfairly sacked from their jobs, according to civil liberties groups.
Under legislation due to be voted on in the Federal Parliament this year, the crime commission would be allowed to pass on information about serious and organised crime to businesses such as banks and superannuation funds. This would include telling them when an employee was suspected of criminal links.
Civil libertarians say the proposals toss away the presumption of innocence and may lead to lives being unfairly destroyed.
The proposals, introduced into Parliament last year by the Gillard government, have been sparked by the escalating threat of organised crime infiltrating legitimate businesses. The Age has reported recently on the boom in fraud, identity theft and the importation of chemicals to make amphetamines.
The commission's chief executive, John Lawler, recently told a parliamentary hearing on the proposed laws that it would be made clear to the companies that they could not use the information to sack employees.
"The [commission] information is to be used solely as a 'lead' and not as evidence to justify employment action," Mr Lawler said.
"Many large private sector entities have the capacity to conduct effective and discreet inquiries and . . . such capacity would be a consideration relevant to the decision whether to make this type of disclosure in a particular case."
Mr Lawler also said it would not be in the commission's interests for the employee to be sacked, as that could tip criminals off to the fact they were being investigated.
However, the president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, Robin Speed, dismissed the assurances, asking how a company could be presented with evidence of an employee's alleged criminal links and not act on it.
He also criticised an assertion by Mr Lawler that if the commission had evidence of a crime, it would be obliged to pass the evidence to the appropriate authorities, rather than leave the matter to the employer.
"You are saying . . . we do not prosecute him, we will work out another way which will get him. You are really lowering the bar to destroy a person, and I think that is unacceptable," Mr Speed told the inquiry.
"What you say is, 'well, I can report that you were with the bikies, I can wreck your life, I can wreck your family's life because I think you are familiar with that person'.
"You do not need courts then, you do not need prosecutors, you do not need independent people and you do not need an open trial. You just damn the person in secret. It is all about damning the person behind closed doors."
Civil Liberties Australia also warned that the changes to the law risked overturning the presumption of innocence and "normalis[ing] the practice of assuming citizens are guilty for the purposes of investigation".
The changes would also allow the commission to begin sharing information with government bodies other than a core group comprising agencies such as the Tax Office and customs, which it has not been able to do before.
In its submission to the inquiry, the commission said it had been hindered in its dealings with the Victorian Racing Integrity Commission and the federal climate change department by not being able to share organised crime information.
The commission has said it is also constrained in tackling investment scams for which it has set up a taskforce called Galilee by its inability to provide superannuation funds with information.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What do the proposed laws let the Australian Crime Commission do with its information?
The proposals would allow the Australian Crime Commission to share information about serious and organised crime with private sector businesses (for example banks and superannuation funds) and with a wider set of government bodies beyond its current core agencies. That could include telling a company when an employee is suspected of criminal links.
How could Crime Commission information sharing affect everyday investors and superannuation members?
For everyday investors, the changes aim to help tackle organised crime and investment scams by allowing the commission to share intelligence with super funds and other relevant bodies. The commission says it has been constrained from helping with investment scams (it set up a Galilee taskforce) because it could not pass information to superannuation funds under the current rules.
Could sharing Crime Commission intelligence lead to employees being unfairly sacked?
Civil liberties groups warn it could. The article reports concerns that sharing suspected criminal links with employers risks damaging lives and overturning the presumption of innocence. The commission’s chief executive, John Lawler, says disclosures would be a 'lead' only and companies would be told they cannot use the information to justify dismissal — but critics are sceptical this would prevent unfair job losses.
What safeguards has the commission proposed to stop companies using intelligence to sack staff?
According to the article, John Lawler told a parliamentary hearing the commission would make clear the information is to be used solely as a 'lead' and not as evidence for employment action. He also said if the commission has evidence of a crime it would pass that evidence to appropriate authorities rather than leaving it to employers. Critics, however, say these assurances may not be sufficient.
Will the proposed information sharing help fight investment scams targeting investors?
The commission argues yes. It says current rules have hindered its work on investment scams — for which it set up a taskforce called Galilee — because it could not provide superannuation funds with organised-crime information. Allowing sharing with super funds could improve detection and prevention of some scams.
Which government agencies could receive Crime Commission information under the changes?
The changes would permit the commission to share information with government bodies beyond its previous 'core group' (examples given include the Tax Office and customs). The commission said it had been hindered in dealings with agencies such as the Victorian Racing Integrity Commission and the federal climate change department because of current limits on sharing organised-crime intelligence.
What do civil liberties groups say about the privacy and presumption-of-innocence risks?
Civil Liberties Australia warned the proposals risk overturning the presumption of innocence and normalising treating citizens as guilty for investigation purposes. The Rule of Law Institute’s president Robin Speed criticised the approach, saying presenting alleged links to an employer without prosecution could 'destroy a person' and that secret damning without open trial is unacceptable.
How might banks and super funds handle crime-commission leads about suspected employee criminal links?
The article says the commission believes many large private entities have the capacity to carry out effective and discreet inquiries, and that such capacity would be considered before making disclosures. Still, opponents ask how a company could be shown evidence of alleged criminal links and then be expected not to act — highlighting practical and legal questions for banks and superannuation funds about how to use such intelligence responsibly.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
