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

I congratulate the member for Reid on his contribution, but I will correct him on one thing. I was never a police officer, although I was engaged to represent police officers. I will certainly pass your comments on to many of my esteemed former clients.

I am really happy that this bill is finally being debated. Unexplained wealth has had a very long and torturous history. This is an attempt to ensure that our law-enforcement agencies have access to the contemporary tools they need for combatting serious and organised crime.

Regrettably, in 2009—obviously before the time of the member for Reid—the current Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, was at the vanguard of watering down the then unexplained wealth legislation, all in the name of civil liberties. Ironically, this protected the liberties of those who were commissioning or participating in criminal enterprise—the very people who were inflicting harm on our community. I do not want to be overly legalistic about it but those were the liberties that were being protected by the watering down of the unexplained wealth legislation. As a consequence, the legislation became unworkable and, after 12 months of operation, not a single proceeding was commenced under that legislation.

The member for Cowan, who is sitting over there, is a former police officer. He will recall the efforts of the then Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to review the shortcomings of that legislation. I am happy that what we have in front of us now is the government's response to the committee's unanimous report and recommendations on amendments to the Proceeds of Crimes Act—and I will go through some of the particular recommendations, and the impact, as I go on.

In 1997, Interpol recommended that its member countries give effect to laws to give police and law enforcement agencies powers to combat money laundering both domestically and internationally, including reversing the onus of proof in respect of the confiscation of alleged proceeds of crime. The legislation that we have before us moves well beyond the proceeds of crime. The unexplained wealth provisions go to the heart of a person who is engaged in serious crime, requiring them to explain how part or all of their assets were acquired by legal means. If they cannot, they risk forfeiting them.

In a law enforcement sense, unexplained wealth laws represent a relatively new form of criminal asset confiscation whereby serious and organised crime groups who cannot account for their wealth may be subject to civil forfeiture proceedings. The value of unexplained wealth as a law enforcement tool lies in its ability to undermine the business model of crime itself. The incentive behind most organised crime is to make money; organised crime is a profit-making venture. So removing wealth from organised criminal networks and associated individuals diminishes the incentive to participate in criminal enterprise.

Unexplained wealth legislation puts at risk not only the proceeds of a particular crime but all assets which cannot be properly accounted for. Furthermore, the confiscation of criminal profits removes funds that may otherwise be reinvested in future criminal endeavours. Whatever that endeavour might be—for example, funding another drug run or commissioning another rebirthing operation—removing those funds removes the incentive to reinvest. That is very good for the community because it plays a significant role in disrupting the operations of criminal networks.

The Australian Crime Commission estimates that the cost of organised crime in this country is somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion a year, of which around $6 billion goes offshore annually. It is important that we give to our police and the people we charge with the responsibility of protecting our community the powers they need to combat crime. This is not simply the power to arrest people after a criminal event and bring them to trial and seek a prosecution—the traditional notion of policing, I suppose; or, at least, that would have been the case in my father's day—but to use all the appropriate provisions to deter and disrupt criminal enterprise.

One thing I have always said is that, for every crime, there is a victim of crime. Therefore, if you prevent a crime or deter the commissioning of a crime, there is one less victim. This is what our community needs. I believe that the efforts of the previous Labor government in the area of law enforcement have already put us on a strong footing—and certainly a lot stronger than most law enforcement jurisdictions internationally. I am firmly of the view that unexplained wealth represents one of the key measures in the fight against organised crime.

The Proceeds of Crime Act amendments before us will broaden search and seizure provisions to enable material relevant to unexplained wealth proceedings to be seized by officers executing a search warrant. It will also allow the courts extended time for the serving of notice of unexplained wealth orders. And importantly, because these are increased powers, this bill will also strengthen the scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement of those bodies exercising powers under this act—principally, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission.

But what must come with increasing powers—whether it be search and seizure powers or increased policing powers generally—is greater accountability. And I think the bill gets that right. Specifically, schedule 1 of the bill will, among other things, amend the Proceeds of Crime Act to implement the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's recommendation to include    a statement in the objects clause about undermining the profitability of criminal enterprise. This has been included to provide a measure by which courts can interpret unexplained wealth but also to ensure that evidence related to unexplained wealth proceedings can be seized under search warrant. There are recommendations to ensure evidence relevant to unexplained wealth proceedings can be seized under a search warrant; to streamline affidavit requirements; and to allow the time limit for serving notice of applications for certain unexplained wealth orders to be extended by a court in appropriate circumstances.

One very important recommendation of the committee is to harmonise the legal expense and the legal aid provisions of unexplained wealth cases to those that already apply under the Proceeds of Crime Act. I do not know if people appreciate it, but at the moment, if you are defending against unexplained wealth proceedings, you can use all those assets, financial and otherwise, to go to your legal defence, even though they may eventually be seized as unexplained wealth. This bill will not allow those assets and resources to be used in defence of someone trying to defend against unexplained wealth proceedings.

In addition to Schedule 1, this bill amends Purposes of Crimes Act to extend the purposes under section 266A for which information obtained under the coercive powers can be shared with states, territories or foreign authorities to include proceeds of crime purposes. Whilst there is no doubt that this legislation will impinge on people's liberties—particularly, in my humble submission, those who are engaged in criminal enterprise—clearly the objective of these provisions is about deterring and disrupting crime itself.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge Vince Kelly APM, President of the Police Federation of Australia, and the leaders of each of the state and territory police associations and the Australian Federal Police Association. I acknowledge them because they were the very first to raise the issue of unexplained wealth and to place it on the national agenda back in 2007. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Their contribution came at a time when the parliamentary joint committee was frustrated by what we saw as the competing strategies and interests being adopted by the various police jurisdictions when it came to addressing serious and organised crime. Vince Kelly was able to assemble representatives of the nation's—at that stage—55,000 serving police officers and in a very clear and concise way to articulate the views of police officers about their needs in fighting contemporary organised crime.

I have recently been advised that Vince Kelly will soon step down from the Northern Territory Police Service; ending his 27 years as a police officer, 14 of which he led the NT Police Association and for seven years he has been at the helm as President of the Police Federation of Australia. To Vince Kelly APM, on behalf of all members involved with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement as well as those members who participate in the Parliamentary Friends of Police, I thank him for his service, his contribution and certainly his leadership in advancing policing and law enforcement related issues on the national agenda.

In making his contribution the member for Moreton indicated that this legislation does not go far enough, and I am sure the member for Cowan would probably agree with that, as I do. One thing that is certain in combatting serious crime is that we can never be static. We can never stand still and expect that we are going to defeat serious and organised criminal networks. We must ensure that our police have the most contemporary tools necessary to fight crime and protect our community. Unexplained wealth is certainly an issue that I strongly support. As a number of my police colleagues have always said: when chasing down a criminal, follow the money. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context