Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity today to speak on the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Pro­ceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. I support this bill, as I support every bill that will provide outcomes that make this nation and the people of this nation safer. When it comes to fighting crime, it is all hands on deck. It is everybody's job, not just the police. It is the job of parents to raise their children with good examples and a total observance of the law. It is our neighbours and our own responsibility to investigate that sound outside in the street, to observe those that should not be there, to report crime and suspicions and to assist the police and the justice system by being prepared to go to court and give evidence. These are the requirements of citizens and residents of Australia.

In returning to this bill, one of the great weapons in the fight against crime in recent years has been the pursuit of the proceeds of those crimes. We know that the motivation for crime is predominantly greed and money. Attacking the motivation for crime, taking away the profits, the benefits in the form of cash or property, is what can really hurt these criminals. Obviously we want to lock up the criminals, but we must also attack them where it hurts, with their property. If a criminal has bought their boat, their house and otherwise lived the good life paid for by the proceeds of crime, then all that should be liable to be forfeited under proceeds of crime legislation.

I say that if a criminal and their family loses their house, cars and other assets under proceeds of crime legislation then this was a risk that they knew about when they participated or were knowingly involved in such crimes. When we too often see those stories in the newspapers about suburban drug laboratories, I say that those houses should be subject to forfeit as proceeds of crime. I say that, where these houses may be state housing, those on the lease agreement who were involved in the crimes should no longer be allowed to access such housing. When we see the drug dealers operating from houses in our streets, the same should occur. Where those occupants also have cars, boats or other such assets acquired through the proceeds of crime, I say take it all and sell it all. Those assets should be converted into funding for crime prevention.

This bill is designed to address the possibility of constitutional issues with our current legislative framework for registering proceeds of crime orders. We are supportive of this bill because we cannot allow any problems in registering proceeds of crime orders that come from foreign countries, international tribunals or the International Criminal Court. It is in this bill that courts will be guaranteed the power to register and enforce foreign orders, and it will be done through amendments to the Mutual Ass­istance in Criminal Matters Act, the International Criminal Court Act and the International War Crimes Tribunals Act. It is designed to allow courts in Australia to give effect to foreign orders in circumstances where property related to serious foreign offences is located in Australia.

I would like to turn to the specifics of proceeds of crime, because it was due to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and in particular subsection 298(1), that the minister has been able to fund crime prev­ention measures, law enforcement measures, measures relating to treatment of drug addiction and diversionary measures relating to the illegal use of drugs. It was certainly the case that the Howard government recognised the value of diverting the proceeds of crime to these forms of programs and much was done to achieve better crime prevention outcomes as a result. In looking around, the value of community based crime prevention programs, coordinated and imp­lemented by local people under the oversight of the police, is without question the right way to go. Local programs with the ability to locally inspire will always be the most effective options. I support the increased rollout of CCTV trailers and, as the minister will recall, I have asked about this option. I can assure my constituents that I will be continuing to fight for this and other community crime prevention initiatives.

Although this has been substantially cov­ered by the shadow minister, I would also like to make mention of David Hicks. This is a classic proceeds of crime issue, either through the rules of his plea agreement or under the Proceeds of Crime Act. As we know, in 2007 David Hicks pleaded guilty to a charge of providing material support to a terrorist organisation, and although he was charged under the American Military Commissions Act 2006 it is in fact a charge closely related to the Commonwealth Crim­inal Code offence, section 102—providing material support for a terrorist organisation. As part of the plea agreement, Hicks committed to 'assigning to the government of Australia any profits or proceeds which I may be entitled to receive in connection with any publication or dissemination of information relating to the illegal conduct alleged in the charge sheet'. It seems like the information is all there. Without a doubt, the conditions of David Hicks's plea agreement require him to hand over the proceeds of his book. I understand that 70,000 copies of this work of fiction and obfuscation have been produced, at a recommended retail price of $49.95. Perhaps $350,000 may be the sum of royalties due to the Australian government. A lot of CCTV trailers could be provided with that sort of money.

I would ask the question: why is it that the government has not yet taken Hicks on, dealt with this issue and prosecuted the laws of this country? Perhaps it is a problem for the government in that so much political capital was committed by some of those opposite in support of Hicks. So much was done by the Left over there on the government side, and with their close allies the Greens, that perhaps a deal has been done. Perhaps the Brown Greens party made the phone call and told the Prime Minister that she should back off—if you believe the revisionist, leftist mantra that David Hicks is goodness and light incarnate. What is the short description of the book? 'David Hicks's story of endurance through injustice'—a title that is trite to the extreme. I certainly have no time for terrorists or mercenaries—those who wear a uniform or take up arms for a non-state military force of which they are not a citizen. Hanging out as a mate of terrorists? If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, it is most definitely a duck.

I support this bill, but I think the government is lacking in its commitment to actually walk the walk. This bill will pass, but I call upon the government to take on the delusional Left's poster boy and stand up to Bob Brown for once, to take the financial proceeds of this book that exists only because of an admitted and proven crime by a convicted criminal. I find it inconceivable, so many months after the launch of the book, that there is still any doubt about this matter of whether or not he will be allowed to profit. Back in 2007, there was no doubt under the former government when the then Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, said:

There is law in Australia which relates to proceeds of crime and it has extra territorial application.

It concerns me if people who have committed terrorist acts and been convicted of them were to profit from them, that's why we have laws on the proceeds of crime.

That is a significant contrast to the current circumstances under this government where things seem to be more equivocal. On 23 September 2010, a spokesperson for the Attorney-General's Department said, 'The Proceeds of Crime Act could be applied'. Could be applied? The book went on sale on 16 October 2010. Why is this matter still not completed? Why is there still any doubt about whether the government is going to take away from Mr Hicks the money that is the proceeds of this crime? It really is about time that the government dealt with this matter. There have been nine months of uncertainty about this. The government should stand up, stand by the act and do what needs to be done to make sure that the proceeds of this crime are taken by the Commonwealth and distributed to good crime prevention programs to help make this country a safe place.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I believe very strongly in programs to do with crime prevention, as I am sure everybody else in this House does. We are challenged by criminal elements in streets across our country, but we also challenged by those who seem to think that action on these crimes, action on reporting, is somebody else's problem. As I said before, crime is everybody's problem. We must all be prepared to stand up and be counted. We must all be prepared to stand up and do what needs to be done. I am not talking about going out and tackling people who are committing crimes; I am talking about active participation in the justice system by people who are prepared to pick up the phone, call the police, record descriptions of people and are prepared to go to court. These are the things that are required in this country so that those doing the wrong thing feel that they are constantly under pressure. Those who are walking through the streets of our suburbs looking for places to knock over or for cars to steal must be made to feel that they are under surveillance—that they are being looked at and observed. It is in those sorts of circumstances that our streets will become safer places.

I recall that, while door knocking through South Ballajura in Cowan during the 2007 election campaign, three times on one street of about 50 houses someone came out onto the street and greeted me with, 'Hello mate, what are you up to?' I felt that people were concerned—not concerned about me, a bastion of society like me, of course—that if they did not recognise somebody out on the streets they should find out who that person was. I thought that was a great example of a street where people care and where crime would not flourish at all. Places like that, and other streets in Cowan I have been on where similar circumstances have arisen, make you feel that people care about their street and their community and that they will do what needs to be done to provide that level of protection to the community.

I am in support of this bill that provides the opportunity to take the proceeds of crime away from criminals—to hit them where it really hurts and to make sure that they will not benefit in the long run from their crimes. This is very good principle in this country and the use of that money for community and crime prevention programs, such as the last government had and which this government has, is what we should be doing on all occasions.

See this speech in context