Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me pleasure to talk on this bill because it has been something that respective governments, Labor and Liberal, have attempted to tackle at the federal level. When we were in government, we attempted a number of times to get coordination through the attorneys-general at the state, territory and Commonwealth level to deal with the issue of unexplained wealth. There are people that, for whatever reason, have accrued vast amounts of wealth and it is very difficult to determine how that wealth has been accrued. There are clearly enough reasons for us to pursue or to inquire into the sources of that wealth which, in many instances, has been acquired in an illegal way, and we need to be able to home in on that and tackle it.

The problem has been that the states and territories have been reluctant to confer the powers on the Commonwealth. Even though former home affairs minister, Jason Clare, the member for Blaxland, had given assurances that the states would still be able to retain the revenue and that the proceeds that had been secured by the Commonwealth would be available for states, there has been a high degree of resistance. This remains a national priority, given the fact that a lot of the people that are suspected of having unexplained wealth or assets that we believe have been obtained or funded improperly cross borders. They cross territories and states, and they do need to have a national focus. So the ability to get those levels of government working together is very important.

Being able to make headway on this is critical, and we have indicated our support for this bill because, in large part, it reflects the bulk of the work that we had undertaken when in government. In fact, I understand it is almost word for word identical to the previous Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012 which was introduced in this place in November 2012, and passed in February 2013. While the bill was introduced in the Senate on 6 February 2013, it lapsed with the end of the 43rd Parliament in September 2013. We certainly welcome the fact that this is being brought back into the House so that it may become law.

Just by way of clarification, the laws themselves enable a court to issue a declaration that unless the subject of proceedings can establish that his or her wealth was lawfully acquired, an assessment will be made on the quantum of unexplained wealth and the subject of the declaration will have to pay the relevant jurisdiction. They are a powerful tool. They are a very important tool in the fight against organised crime. They allow authorities to be able to gain and seize assets that exceed a person's legitimate wealth. From the opposition's perspective— particularly from our time in government—it enables the targeting of those criminal elements who are profiting from crime without being directly involved in the commission of an offence. As I said before, this was something that had been the focus for quite some time of Labor in government, and it is important that this work continue.

We had also, when in government, secured the support of former police commissioners Nick Palmer and Ken Moroney. They were appointed by then Minister Clare to negotiate with the jurisdictions to overcome those problems that I indicated earlier where the states and territories were reluctant to confer power to the federal level. It is understood that in October last year their report was handed up to the government. The government were supposed to report back in a matter of weeks. That has not occurred. It is of concern that this has not been the case. Again, if this work has been done, it is puzzling why it has been held back and why it has not been released in the public space or any kind of government response to it delivered.

It does not surprise me, though, because in many instances Minister Keenan said one thing in opposition and has said another thing now that he is on the government side of the House. He had previously, for example, been very eager to condemn the former Labor government on issues such as the level of resourcing enjoyed by agencies such as the ACC, Customs and Border Protection, and the AFP. In fact, while he may have spoken very strongly in opposition about resourcing for those agencies, it is clear from the first Hockey budget that the strength of his conviction was unable to prevent the cuts to them that have gone through. In actual fact, for instance, during a press conference last year now Minister Keenan was quoted as saying, in criticising cuts to the AFP budget, that Australia's national security had become weaker. What happened in this May's budget? $11.7 million was axed from the Federal Police. So his strength of conviction in opposition, as I said, failed to shield the AFP when in government. That will have a direct impact on the AFP's ability to protect the community. We believe around 300 AFP jobs are at risk because of these cuts. Again, those opposite are prepared to say one thing in opposition and do another thing in government.

I will mention another example that has been highlighted by the shadow minister. The Abbott government has cancelled $42.5 million in funding that had been allocated by the former government for additional sworn officers and $22 million across four years for the AFP's aviation operations at Hobart airport. Again, they said one thing in opposition, making the criticism, but they are not able to deliver in government. Certainly I think there is an appreciation that the rhetoric in opposition has not been able to sustain commitment or intention in government. That is an issue. Hopefully, the severity of that rhetoric will be wound back in years to come.

I turn to the other issue that it is important to discuss today. That is the whole issue of the National Crime Prevention Fund. That is a fund that was important for communities across the country. It had about $40 million. It was a component of the former government's package of measures to address gang violence and street crime within the community. It is certainly something that I felt strongly about in my part of Western Sydney because we had groups and local area commands in Western Sydney able to work together on antisocial behaviour that was affecting the quality of life of the people I represent in this place. The National Crime Prevention Fund was designed to support initiatives in high crime areas and to address the disconnection of young people that might be a trigger for antisocial behaviour. It also provided for diversionary and educational activities to help reintegrate young people into society. It also supported, for instance, the installation of closed circuit TV in areas that were known to be prone to antisocial behaviour, such as the damage of property and businesses in areas where there are major thoroughfares but problems with lighting and people taking advantage of those spaces to impact on local residents.

In my part of the world out in Doonside in Rooty Hill they have some of the few shopping strip areas outside of major shopping centres. These places have started to disappear as most commercial activity get centralised within shopping centres. But when theses shops are out in the open, particularly late at night, they are more vulnerable to antisocial behaviour—in particular, for example, graffiti and vandalism. In our part of the world, for quite some time I have been trying to marshal effort between police, business and community groups to try to work out short-term, medium-term and longer term strategies to deal with the issue. The short-term ones involved the use of CCTV to be able to quickly target those people who are undertaking this type of behaviour. The medium-term ones were the diversionary types of activities that were funded under the National Crime Prevention Fund. That would have involved community groups like the Blacktown Youth Services Association and Eagle Raps in Doonside getting offenders to find another outlet for their energies and ensure they were not engaging in antisocial behaviour. The longer term strategy was an innovative pilot program undertaken by Blacktown council, working with primary and secondary schools to tackle those behaviours that might lead to antisocial behaviour down the track. Blacktown council is to be commended for thinking longer term on this and getting young people to minimise the risk of them engaging in this behaviour.

Another activity that was really important, too, under the former local area commander for Blacktown, Mark Wright, who I have spoken about here previously, and Marist Youth Care, was a really great initiative called Com4unity. This dealt with antisocial behaviour within Westpoint in Blacktown where young kids were engaging in brawls and fighting. They had a very good pilot program that had seen a massive drop in that antisocial behaviour. They then formed a proposal under the National Crime Prevention Fund to be able to work together to extend that program. I was exceptionally pleased that they secured funding for the things I have talked about for Doonside and Rooty Hill, also for the work with Marist Youth Care and the police, through the PCYC that was involved. They were ready to receive those funds. They had received the letters indicating that they had got those funds. And what happened? The incoming government ripped all of the funds away.

I was grateful for the motion moved by the member for Kingston this week in which we talked about $800,000 of funds being ripped away from Marist Youth Care's Youth Connections. On top of that, they lost access to the funds that were given to them under the National Crime Prevention Fund. That is probably close to $1 million that would have been dedicated to improving antisocial behaviour in our area or to find employment outlets for young people in our area that was gone. It was ripped completely away. This government, which makes a big deal in question time about the funding of the East West Link and the tearing up of contracts, and which manages to bring Victorian state politics into this place, did a whole stack of that with community groups in this portfolio area. Ripping out that funding has impacted our ability to tackle antisocial behaviour in local areas.

What did they do with the money instead? They introduced the Safer Streets Program, a $50 million crime prevention initiative. From what I understand, even though we had groups ready to start the work—it takes a lot of long-term commitment to be able to break down these issues in local communities—this money was torn away. Everything has pretty much screeched to a halt, and we have a new program in place. No money has been allocated to youth mentoring or outreach programs, based on what we have been able to see. The only funding that has been provided is for projects that relate to CCTV, mobile CCTV and better lighting. That is all that has been done. But for the stuff that needs a longer term commitment and investment nothing has been done.

The target group of funding under the first funding round of the Abbott government's Safer Streets Program is organisations that were identified before October 2013. The Auditor-General has announced a lengthy investigation into this program, particularly into the eligibility criteria and the selection process used to award millions of dollars' worth of grants. In the first round of funding $19.3 million of taxpayers' money has been allocated to organisations hand-picked by the Liberal Party in the lead up to the 2013 election. It is simply shameful that we went through a selection process with public criteria, selected the groups and had them ready only to have the funding stopped. It was an arms-length process that was undertaken by the Attorney-General's Department. That was stopped and in its place this sham program that basically targets hand-picked organisations in a way that lacks transparency and is unable to demonstrate whether value for money will be delivered or not. More importantly, nothing is happening in the areas we represent. We cannot afford for this work not to go ahead.

Again, I raise the point that the Abbott government has affected our ability to deal with antisocial behaviour in our area. It has stalled action in other areas. We should not be paying a price for the inability of this government to follow proper process and honour previous commitments to good community groups that were going to do great work.

See this speech in context