Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I was just saying, the opposition folded like Superman on washing day when it came to making a promise before the election and then flipping straight after. That hypocrisy was highlighted by the justice minister, Michael Keenan, who is now responsible for a budget that has diminished Australia's top law enforcement agency. To make matters worse, the Abbott government has cancelled $42.5 million of funding allocated by the former Labor government for additional sworn officers and $22 million across four years from the AFP's aviation operations in Hobart airport. Perhaps that has placed Tasmanians in danger. We will see.

With the May budget's exposures, I hope that Minister Keenan is able to realise that his overblown political rhetoric from opposition rings particularly hollow now that he sits on the Treasury benches. Perhaps in his summing up of this legislation he could be a bit apologetic. I remember his crocodile tears after he spoke at this very dispatch box in this spot about our proposed Malaysian solution. I am still waiting for an apology on some of the hypocrisy in that vote.

In terms of working towards a national unexplained wealth scheme, this bill will implement several of the PJC early report recommendations. It will not address a more fundamental problem with the Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws on which the PJC made recommendations for significant reform. As noted above, unexplained wealth laws are particularly valuable in the context of organised crime, where those who derive the greatest profits are not directly involved in the commission of the offences. They are the gutless ones who are a few rungs back from those out front committing the crime. So the unexplained wealth laws are a good thing. They provide an alternative avenue where senior figures cannot be pursued effectively through prosecution or traditional confiscation actions, and they are having some success. Unlike existing confiscation orders, unexplained wealth orders will not require proof of a link to a commission of a specific offence and, in that sense, they represent a quantum leap forward in law enforcement strategy.

However, due to the need for a connection with a constitutional head of power, the application of the Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime is limited to instances where a court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person has committed an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect or that part of the person's wealth was derived from an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect. This undermines the key advantage of unexplained wealth laws over prosecution or traditional confiscation as, in practice, a connection must be made to a specific offence or a fairly specific type of offence in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement.

Whilst the founding fathers saw good sense in having those protections, in this instance the constitutional drafting would prevent us from going after these criminals. In order to remedy this, the PJCLE recommended that the Commonwealth lead the development of a nationally consistent unexplained wealth regime. Further, it accepted the view of the Attorney-General's Department on the best way to achieve that aim, recommending:

That the Australian Government seek a referral of powers from the states and territories for the purpose of legislating for a national unexplained wealth scheme, where unexplained wealth provisions are not limited by having to prove a predicate offence.

Despite assurances they would still retain proceeds seized under their own laws, the states and territories rejected such a proposal on several occasions. In June 2013, former police commissioners Mick Palmer and Ken Moroney were appointed to negotiate with jurisdictions and break this deadlock. I would suggest that some of that deadlock was due to political posturing, but perhaps that is unfair commentary.

The Australian Federal Police Commissioner told the PJCLE on 26 February 2014 that there were some 'very encouraging signs' from the states and territories and that a report from Mr Palmer and Mr Moroney was 'either with the Minister for Justice or very close to being with him'. The Minister for Justice stated on 5 March 2014 that the government was 'continuing to pursue a national scheme with our state and territory colleagues to crackdown on criminals flaunting illegitimate wealth'.

The Abbott government has not made any progress in negotiating with the states and territories, sadly. Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Keenan lack the will to persuade their state counterparts into joining a stronger national approach to unexplained wealth laws. In opposition, Minister Keenan defended the stance taken by the states and territories, asserting on Tuesday, 5 February last year, that:

If the Minister for Home Affairs and the Labor Party were serious about stopping organised crime, the first thing they would do is not lecture the states about what the states should be doing.

This vacuous contribution reveals how the crucial need for a national unexplained wealth scheme is not understood by the Abbott government and, despite the urgent need for one, is not a priority for Minister Keenan—although, I guess he has been a little bit busy of late.

Unexplained wealth laws need a champion. The former Labor government understood this and the effort of Labor's former home affairs minister, Jason Clare, to produce a nationally harmonised unexplained wealth regime is testament to this. Labor will continue to urge the Abbott government and the states and territories to build a stronger national set of laws that attack criminal kingpins and take the profit out of crime. A national stance is the only combatant against organised crime. Targeting the assets and money of criminals will undermine the power and influence of criminals in our communities. Giving law enforcement agencies more power to seize the assets of criminals will be a heavy blow to what seems to be the ever-increasing power and reach of organised crime.

Similar to the Abbott government's minimalist understanding of nationally harmonised unexplained wealth laws is this government's approach to crime prevention. The Abbott government, sadly, has axed Labor's National Crime Prevention Fund in favour of its own Safer Streets Program. However, Minister Keenan is yet to explain the selection and eligibility process for organisations to apply for funding under the government's Safer Streets Program. The National Crime Prevention Fund was a $40 million component of the former Labor government's package of measures to address gang violence and street crime in the community. I can personally attest to the efficacy of this program, having seen it rolled out in Sunnybank. Working with the police, the community, the neighbourhood watch and some of the storekeepers in the Sunnybank area, we have seen changes that make the area safer.

The NCPF was to support initiatives in high crime areas that address societal disconnection of at-risk young people and provide diversionary and educational activities to reintegrate them into society. The NCPF also supported the installation of CCTV systems in established trouble spots and other security infrastructure measures to improve community safety.

The Abbott government have replaced the National Crime Prevention Fund with an election commitment known as the Safer Streets Program. The Safer Streets Program is a $50 million crime prevention initiative. To date, no money has been allocated to youth mentoring and outreach programs. I will repeat that: no money has been allocated to youth mentoring and outreach programs at a time when they are surely crucial. Funding is only to be provided under the Safer Streets Program for security related infrastructure, including CCTV, mobile CCTV and better lighting. They have their place, but this is all sizzle and no sausage. The best way to spend money to prevent crime is on people who have not moved into crime. It costs so much more money to deal with the after-effects of crime, keeping people in prisons and the like, when perhaps a dollar could be spent early on to divert those people and help them become taxpayers and good citizens.

The target group for funding under the first funding round under the Safer Streets Program are organisations that were identified before—guess which date?—October 2013. The Auditor-General has announced a lengthy investigation into the program, particularly the eligibility criteria and the selection process used to award millions of dollars worth of public, hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. In the first round of funding, $19.3 million of taxpayer money—your money, people of Australia—was allocated to organisations that were hand-picked by the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the 2013 election. The guidelines for funding round 1 of the Safer Streets Program states that:

The target group for funding under the first funding round under the Safer Streets Programme is organisations that were identified before October 2013 …

This parliament should make decisions only in the national interest, not just in the interests of the Nationals—and the Liberals, I should clarify, as they are a coalition government.

The Auditor-General has advised that there are serious questions to answer about the Safer Streets Program, including about the eligibility criteria and selection process used to award funding, whether the funds spent under the program have been properly targeted at projects to prevent, detect and deter crime, whether this represents value for money for the taxpayer and whether the distribution of funding has been included in electorate terms rather than in the national interest and community interest.

Minister Keenan is yet to explain who identified successful and unsuitable organisations and what selection criteria were used. Minister Keenan needs to explain how he ensured an unbiased selection process and how political neutrality—always crucial in a democracy like Australia—was ensured when identifying successful organisations on the eve of the election one long year ago.

It is not unrealistic to presume that applicants were pre-selected by a Liberal Party process without any consideration made for worthy organisations that had been approved for funding under the former Labor government's National Crime Prevention Fund. The Abbott government talks big on crime and crime prevention, but funnelling funds into Liberal-friendly councils on the eve of an election borders on deception and deceit. I look forward to seeing how the Auditor-General responds.

There are heightened circumstances in Australia at the moment. Obviously, how we respond to security, make our streets safer and make our community feel safer is important. The legislation before the House goes some way but falls way short of the Labor Party's expectations.

See this speech in context