Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill (No. 2) 2009. I want to put on the record a few comments about what it will do and I want to raise a couple of questions. Organised crime costs Australia approximately $15 billion per year. The Attorney-General has made that statement in this House on a few occasions, including in his second reading speech on this bill. That is a lot of wasted money and I know there would be more than that, because it is not easily quantified when you are dealing with organised crime. I would say that would be a conservative amount of money we are talking about. I would be really interested in seeing the methodology applied to the quantification of this but I know it would be extremely difficult. Can you imagine what services we could deliver to the community if we had that $15 billion?

I know that no jurisdiction will ever be free of organised crime and it would be unrealistic to think that, although it would be good. But we, the lawmakers, have a responsibility to take whatever preventative action we can, both to prevent it and to make it harder to do. Sometimes, that is where action has to be directed. We will not always be able to prevent it but we have to make it a lot harder. We also need to be able to punish it. We have a responsibility to try and stay one step ahead, and therein lies the challenge. When we are introducing laws and enhancing laws and increasing penalties and increasing the powers of our law enforcers, who do quite a good job in this area, we also have to be mindful of our liberties—that is, yours, mine and the community’s. We need to try and always be mindful of calibrating our responses accordingly and getting that balance. Therein lies the biggest challenge for us as lawmakers in this place, but that responsibility falls heavily on the Attorney-General.

One of the threats we face from organised crime is people trafficking. That would have to be one of the most odious, obscene crimes that exist. How you can traffic in people is beyond me. Other threats are the importation of narcotics, community violence and identity crime. We have been reading a lot about identity crime lately. It is rather alarming to think that people can have their identity stolen, and there have been situations where they have really had to struggle to get it back, so to speak. It is just unbelievable. Money laundering and labour exploitation are also really big.

The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, SCAG, agreed to measures to support a national response. SCAG did this at its meetings in April and August this year. This bill and other legislative measures reflect the high level of cooperation among the attorneys-general, and it is a demonstration of their desire—that is, the governments of all levels represented there—to effect a coordinated effort to combat organised crime. I see that the Attorney-General has just joined us here in the chamber. He has done a lot of work in this area, with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, to get the bill that we have before the House today.

The legislative measures contained therein broadly cover three key areas. They are the enhancement of criminal offences, including penalties; the enhancement of criminal asset confiscation; and the enhancement of police powers, where it is deemed necessary in this area. Importantly, it targets unexplained wealth. Unexplained wealth, of itself, does not mean it is the proceeds of organised crime, but it is one of the indicators. Unexplained wealth is a situation that has no place in modern society.

Organised crime is something that exists. It exists in our Asia-Pacific region. It exists internationally, but it certainly exists in the Asia-Pacific region. A lot of it exists underground but it also exists above ground. Organised crime networks use the tools and mechanisms of legitimacy to try and legitimise, to track, what they do. They try to use businesses and banks and all of the other mechanisms that we use. The internet also has become a powerful tool for a lot of things, including organised crime.

The overview of the bill is that implementing legislative agreements of the national response will have the following effects: it will introduce new criminal organisation and association offences; it will enhance the law enforcement capacity vis-a-vis the money-laundering, bribery and drug importation offences; and it will increase penalties for bribing a foreign official and a Commonwealth public official. It is important to increase the penalties but that has to work side by side with other mechanisms of law enforcement. The legislative agreements will allow seized materials to be shared among Commonwealth, state, territory and foreign law enforcement agencies—the latter, I would imagine, with the appropriate protocols in place. It strengthens the Commonwealth confiscation regime regarding criminal assets and it will improve the National Witness Protection Program, which is really important. It will do that by amending the Witness Protection Act 1994. As we know, that act provides protection and assistance to people who are assessed as being in danger because they have agreed to give evidence or a statement that can be used in criminal and certain other proceedings, because of their relationship to such a person.

The amendment will provide increased protection and security for witnesses and others included in the program—I take ‘others’ to be associates and members of that person’s family—as well as officers involved in the operation. It is important that people caught within the ambit of the program are given protection. It will allow protection and assistance available under the National Witness Protection Program to be extended to former participants and other related persons where appropriate. Importantly, it will also ensure that state and territory participants are afforded the same protection and have the same obligations as Commonwealth participants. I cannot go into detail here, but I recently had a situation where somebody sought my assistance in that area. It was not without its problems—let’s put it that way. I will leave that there. Anything that can enhance that protection I both applaud and support. And you can imagine that working across the jurisdictions makes it even more fraught.

Turning to the new criminal organisation and association offences, these are new offences that target persons involved in serious and organised crime. This measure affects the Criminal Code Act 1995. These amendments implement the resolutions agreed to by SCAG on the dates that I mentioned earlier. They also introduce new offences that criminalise associating with persons involved in organised criminal activity as well as those who support or commit crimes for or direct the activities of a criminal organisation. These amendments also facilitate greater access to telecommunications interception powers for the investigation of the new offences. I know there are appropriate controls in place around that for law enforcement agencies to be able to do what they need to do but equally for the liberties of the community at large.

Regarding the money-laundering and bribery and drug importation offences, the bill enhances—that means strengthens—the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute money-laundering offences. This relates to Criminal Code division 400. These amendments are intended to address problems that were previously identified by the Australian Federal Police. In particular, it extends the geographical jurisdiction of those offences. It also removes limitations on the scope of the offences to enable them to apply to the full extent of the Commonwealth’s constitutional power in this area. It also increases the penalties for bribing a foreign public official—again, this amends the Criminal Code; I alluded to this earlier—and the bribery of a Commonwealth public official. It can be challenging. Foreign public officials can sometimes come under great pressure in this area, but the increased penalties should make them think twice about being involved in such activities.

Further, the bill extends the definition of ‘import’ so that it includes dealing with a substance in connection with its importation. That will affect division 91 of the Criminal Code, relating to serious drug offences. That amendment ensures that the Commonwealth drug importation offences cover the full range of criminal conduct covered by the previous drug importation offences in the Customs Act 1901. The aim is to put it beyond doubt in that area.

Regarding the search related amendments, the bill allows material seized under the search and document production powers in the Crimes Act 1914 to be used by and shared between Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies. We are advised that this is necessary for the proper investigation of offences which cross jurisdictional boundaries. That just makes sense because organised crime does not stop at the border—it does not stop when I go over the Queensland border, where I live. I am getting into your territory, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott! It makes sense that seized material should be able to be treated that way. It introduces portability, if you like.

Regarding criminal assets confiscation and anti-money-laundering provisions, the bill amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to strengthen the whole Commonwealth criminal assets confiscation regime. This was deemed necessary. These amendments are in response to the recommendations of law enforcement agencies. Also, in 2002 an independent review of the operation of the Proceeds of Crimes Act was done by Mr Tom Sherman AO, who is well known in this place. The report of that review was tabled in parliament in October 2006.

The amendments will do a number of things. They will expand and clarify the definitions used in the act. They will ensure the correct calculation of pecuniary penalty orders. They will address technical recommendations on the admission of evidence in this area. They will clarify the operation of orders ancillary to restraining orders in this area. They will increase the effectiveness of information-gathering tools under the Proceeds of Crime Act, improve the operation of examination provisions and make tests for exclusion and recovery of property fairer and more consistent, including by strengthening protections for third parties. I discussed with the Attorney-General the ability to have the act as strong as is necessary but also fair, particularly strengthening the protections for third parties, which is an important provision that is included.

The bill also addresses some issues identified by AUSTRAC, which is our anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing regulator, for when it takes enforcement action against reporting entities that do not comply with their obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act is a domestic act but it arises out of one of the 13 international terrorism conventions that we have an obligation to respond to as a result of Security Council resolutions. The act, being consistent with that convention, is an important part of our response nationally and also regionally internationally to terrorism in this area.

The bill amends the act of 2002 to enhance the Australian Crime Commission’s powers to deal with uncooperative witnesses—and I imagine that in this regard there might be a few. It also reinstates procedural requirements for issuing summonses and notices to produce and requires regular independent review of the ACC. That is an important provision because on one hand we are giving wide-ranging powers—which are deemed necessary by the Attorney-General and by SCAG, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General—but on the other hand it is important that there is some independent review of the exercise of those powers. That is just part and parcel of the rule of law society that we live in. I feel quite satisfied that that provision is in there.

Another important provision is that the bill makes what I am told is an urgent amendment that is required to the Crimes Act to ensure that federal defendants in Victoria can continue to appeal a finding that they are unfit to plead. This addresses Victorian legislation to take effect from October 2009. This was one area that I had discussions with the Attorney-General about, and I know that it was necessary to have that included in the bill.

In closing, I am happy to have spoken in support of this bill. It is important that we continue to do what we can to tackle organised crime. It is a blight on our society. It is a huge cost, and that $15 billion—which is a conservative estimate—that it costs each year is something that we cannot afford to treat lightly. I thank the Attorney-General for the detailed discussions that we were able to have on this bill and for taking on board some of the comments and feedback.

See this speech in context