Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for La Trobe, as he volunteers—we will not go to his campaign fund. I withdraw that! It is a fact that these assets are being dispensed internationally. The member will recall that one prominent European jurisdiction that we visited made very clear to us when we asked about what sort of due diligence they imposed for international investment in their country that, unless there was evidence that the money was the proceeds of crime that had been committed in that very prominent country, there was nothing for them to do. In other words, that was a very green light. For anyone who wants to invest their proceeds of crime in hospitals, roads or anything like that, then this country is all but saying it is free for business. They are the things that legitimise criminal engagement; they are the things that legitimise all those things that people want us to stop—crime being peddled on the streets and drugs and all that sort of stuff. If these big fellas out there are earning that sort of money, but can legitimise their assets, protect their criminal empires and go to the most prestigious functions with Prime Ministers—not ours, of course—and other leaders around the globe and in Europe, they are bound to do that. They are the people who underpin the drug sellers on the streets. People out there selling drugs are an expendable commodity. Every time you knock one of those drug dealers over, someone else will take his place. But there are not that many Mr Bigs out there, and they are the ones we have to get to.

I am concerned that in every jurisdiction we visited they all agree that since 2001 there has been a diversion of law enforcement resources into counterterrorism. Clearly, if we have a terrorism event, it would create great damage to the targets and also affect the psyche of the nation. We understand that. We understand that it is a real and live threat and that therefore we need to take measures to meet it. But clearly simply diverting law enforcement resources into counterterrorism should not be seen to ameliorate the position that we need to take against serious and organised crime. That is consistent. It is there and it is a business model. It goes back to what I said a little earlier about a line of least resistance. Maybe these guys are not about to set up some form of jihad, but they might decide to go out and do some credit scams, get into car rebirthing or go into the processing of amphetamines and other drugs.

There is one consistent thing that has emerged when we have talked to each of the law enforcement jurisdictions, and the member for La Trobe will know this from his own experience in Victoria Police. These blokes are not committed; they are not specialists in one particular area. We see people who travel from state to state. They will move from one form of crime into another. It will depend on the return on capital. Just as any other business decision is likely to revolve around that, so their business revolves around it. To that extent, this is why we need to have a consistent national and global position on the way we deal with crime. I am saying that crime in this country moves from state to state and region to region, but clearly it actually moves from overseas and internationally.

I cannot recall the circumstances, Jason, but someone made a comment to us when we were in Europe. Actually, it was the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. They did an assessment. Kevin Rudd says that organised crime is responsible for costing this country $10 billion annually. Across the world, the UN gives an estimated figure that I cannot recall off the top of my head. But, if you were to add it up in terms of all the advanced economies, the criminal empire would come in as the 18th largest economy in the world. On those sorts of statistics, next time we have a G20 meeting we should actually have the don there, because they probably represent a significant portion of wealth. It is at that sort of magnitude.

That is why we are saying that in this country you cannot put your head in the sand and think that you can fix this just by having more coppers out there on the beat and all the rest of it, doing all those things that they have to do out there to ensure the wellbeing and safety of our people on the streets. That is a form of policing. It is also a form of policing to ensure that we are not subject to a terrorist attack, that we have all that intelligence and that we process it. Again, in this day and age, regrettably that is also core business. But it is core business for us to keep our focus on organised crime because, whilst terrorism may or may not occur, if we allow organised crime to flourish then we will be damaged, because their whole business plan is underpinned by the damage that they can wreak not only on people but on our economy. As I say, going back to the Prime Minister’s comments, there is $10 billion annually that flows out of this country into organised crime.

I have probably wandered on long enough, but I commend this report to my colleagues to read. There are some very serious recommendations. The unexplained wealth provisions, I think, are a key tool that should be given to our law enforcement agencies. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Briggs) adjourned.

See this speech in context