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

I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Canada, the United States, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands from 12 April to 3 May 2009, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

I rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission delegation report, because it is one that I would commend to each and every member of this House. The basis of the report was to look at international experiences of, and trends in, serious and organised crime and also the legislative responses to it being taken by other countries. We examined the legislative responses to organised crime in the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States, Canada and Italy, specifically its anti-Mafia response.

Perceptions count for a lot—they certainly do in politics. At the moment, people would not think that we have a significant issue with serious and organised crime in this country. Regrettably, sometimes perceptions are wrong and that can possibly lead to a lax response. One of the consistent things that we found during the course of the delegation was that, since the rise of global terrorism, the diversion of law enforcement resources into counterterrorism has been disproportionate to other areas, such as local policing. Local police agencies, aided by the requests of local political operatives, tend to want to concentrate on the immediate issues such as street and domestic based crimes. Without exception, every jurisdiction that we visited made the point that the difference between what proportion of resources is directed at domestic crime and what is directed at counterterrorism is significant. That void is there—but now it is being taken up as the incubator for serious and organised crime. When we came to power we were conscious of that. One of the electoral commitments that we made was for 500 extra policing positions in the AFP.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where are they?

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

I will address the issue raised by the member for La Trobe, who made a significant contribution to the compilation of this report. We wanted to look at matters concerning the development of serious and organised crime, and now we are required to face them. With the ever-increasing challenge that that presents, the delegation sought to capture and learn from the experiences of overseas countries in their attempts to address crime.

I would like to thank all those who contributed to the setting up of the delegation, particularly those who provided logistical support. I would also like to thank officers of the AFP, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Australian Crime Commission, the Attorney-General’s Department, the various parliamentary officers and particularly members of the committee secretariat. They include Dr Jacqueline Dewar, who heads the secretariat, Robyn Clough, Nina Boughey and Danielle Oldfield. I would also like to thank the leader of the delegation, Senator Steve Hutchins, the deputy leader, Senator Stephen Parry, and my parliamentary colleague the member for La Trobe, Mr Wood.

I think what we gained was probably more than what we expected from the outset. There were five main things that I would like to summarise, not so much recommendations but key findings, that followed from each of the discussions we had with law enforcement agencies. Firstly, there was following the money trail. Secondly, there was the need for information sharing and greater cooperation amongst law enforcement jurisdictions and other agencies within government and on an intergovernmental basis. Thirdly, there was the benefit of developing measures to prevent organised crime rather than simply reacting to it. Fourthly, there was the critical role that political will plays in combating serious and organised crime and, fifthly, there was the need for government to take a holistic approach in tackling the issue relating to not simply one piece of legislation but a suite of measures to address, on a community basis, serious and organised crime.

When we speak about the money trail I think it is best summarised by the head of the Italian National Police, Mr Raffaele Grassi, when he articulated his approach in respect to this. He said:

Criminal members are prepared to spend time in prison, but to take their assets is to really harm these individuals.

What he encapsulates there is addressing the business model that underpins crime. I know the member for La Trobe and I have had many conversations about this. One of the fallacies with criminal law at the moment is that we wait until a crime has been committed and then attempt to react to it and go through the normal legal and prosecutorial processes that follow.

One of the responsibilities we have to our communities—and this is what the overseas jurisdictions are now beginning to identify—is to disrupt crime and prevent it from occurring, and the way to do that is to address the business model that underpins criminal activity. That is what international jurisdictions are moving to do. Whilst our words are ‘following the money trail’, that is precisely what the jurisdictions are doing at the moment. In their opinion, it is not appropriate to simply concentrate law enforcement resources on the drug pushers on the streets and make arrests there—and they are the domestic element of organised criminal activity. Rather they address the business model that provides the criminals with their merchandise to peddle on our streets, to get to the importation of the drugs, to get to the massive syndicates, which across the country were described as being more ‘boardroom operations’ than our perception of a group of unshaven criminals sitting around plotting and scheming.

These are very, very sophisticated operations and, as a consequence, the money trail becomes very significant. What follows then is the issue of money-laundering. It is the basis of these illegal operations to ensure that whatever wealth has accumulated, however ill-gained, is then converted into legitimate means through various methods of money-laundering. These are the international experiences we found, that international jurisdictions are moving very solidly to attack the business model underpinning organised and serious crime in their respective countries.

Information sharing becomes very important. Fortunately we only have a very few jurisdictions—state and territory—as well as our federal AFP and the Australian Crime Commission. I think there are significant inroads being made to improve the levels of information sharing. I know this is something that the member for La Trobe has often commented on, having regard to his background with the Victorian police. I think that is something that we should take some solace from in terms of what we are doing and what we are doing well in that regard. From our experiences overseas, we know that we should not be taking our foot off the pedal. We should be not simply looking at the information sharing that emanates from our police or law enforcement jurisdictions but ensuring that we capture all the necessary information, particularly when it relates to the investing of moneys of criminals.

Whilst still talking about the issue of the money trail, one of the important pieces of legislative support is the looking at and addressing of unexplained wealth that is accumulated within the criminal community. It is something that was spearheaded in terms of the inter-Mafia policing operations in Italy and they certainly have an international aspect to reviewing the proceeds of crime.

The delegation were informed that, if we are to effectively dismantle the business models upon which these criminal operations are based, we need to look into unexplained wealth and take away the ability for reinvestment in further criminal activity. The delegation heard of the effectiveness of the UK’s approach reversing the onus of proof for civil assets forfeiture proceedings regarding those who have led a ‘criminal lifestyle’. This is designed to take away the incentive to invest in further criminal activity. It is about dismantling and disrupting criminal activity—not, as some of our colleagues in the legal profession have put to us as being the correct course of action, waiting until a crime has been committed and then proceeding to extract evidence with a view to mounting a prosecution. There is a responsibility, which has been acknowledged overseas, that we as legislators have to disrupt the commission of those crimes in the first place. That is what we need to do to protect society. That is probably not an approach that would sit very well with those in this House who have very strong views about civil liberties. It is not designed to placate others who are less so inclined.

Our findings were that activities overseas are very much based on doing what is necessary to address a situation which is now progressively getting worse. It has got worse since the increase in terrorism and it is getting worse with the sophistication and internationalisation of the criminal base. There is not one jurisdiction that we visited that said that they were on top of the issue. Each and every one of them is looking at suites of legislative and regulatory alternatives to position them to combat these developments. That is what we have attempted to focus on.

One further thing I would like to mention is the role of political will, something that has been referred to many times in this place and, believe it or not, something that was referred to in every jurisdiction we visited. The importance of political will was raised everywhere as being critical to driving both domestic and international responses to organised crime. The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime both discussed with us the lack of political will as being a significant impediment to the success of international collaboration on organised crime and emphasised that it was probably the sole inhibitor of a coordinated approach to fighting organised crime. Both organisations were very clear in our meetings with them that we should be making recommendations to this parliament that emphasise the need to demonstrate the political will to do these things.

It is for that reason I will briefly mention how pleased I was to see the Attorney-General yesterday introduce into the parliament the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009, which will implement reforms to Commonwealth laws as part of a comprehensive national response to combat serious and organised crime. These reforms focus on confiscating the proceeds of crime while strengthening national law enforcement coordination and capability. The strategy is two-pronged: to remove the profitability of criminal activity and to increase the likelihood of criminals being caught. I cannot speak for all members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission—although I think I would have a reasonable sense of their views upon reading this legislation—but this bill would be very close to what we would be making recommendations about. It certainly sits well with the best legislative responses we found internationally in terms of combating crime. I compliment the Attorney-General on introducing that legislation.

Finally, while the delegation formed many lasting impressions of the problems and the solutions in respect of serious and organised crime, the way forward was best articulated by Mr Antonia Maria Costa, Executive Director, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:

The political will of states is mightier than the greed and fire power of criminal groups. Working together does not mean surrendering sovereignty, it means defending it. So let us enforce the rule of law where uncivil society prevails.

I commend the report to the House. As I said, I do request that members take the time to read that report. I also compliment the contributions that have been made in the formulation of this report by my colleagues the member for La Trobe, Senator Parry and Senator Hutchins.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I also rise to speak on the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Canada, the United States, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. First of all, I thank the member for Werriwa for his kind words. He and his Senate colleague Steve Hutchins, my Liberal Senate colleague Steve Parry and I were all in this delegation, and the Australian Crime Commission committee has been working very effectively together—and that is one of the great things about the ACC committee, how well the political parties are working together for the common cause in combating serious and organised crime. On that note, I also thank Senator Steve Fielding for his involvement. The report has been exceptionally well put together by the secretary, Dr Jacqueline Dewar; she has done a fantastic job.

I would say that the biggest thing which came out of this report—and I will get to it in more detail later on—is definitely the money trail. That is what serious and organised crime is about. It is really about two things: creating great wealth and power, but you cannot have the power unless you have got the great wealth. In every country we visited, there is the view now in law enforcement that you need to go after the money. As an ex-police officer, I can say that, in the old days, our goal used to be to lock up the guys. We put the proceeds of crime at the end of the tail, and if we got some money back that was great. But it does not actually bring down criminal organisations. That is why the unexplained wealth legislation which was introduced yesterday—and obviously it needs to go through our party room—is something that I have been fighting very hard for, with other colleagues on the Australian Crime Commission committee.

I also would like to pay great tribute to people for the assistance we had, in particular from the Australian Federal Police in Canberra. We had members assisting us such as the Assistant Commissioner of Border and International, Tim Morris; Commander Paul Osborne; and Miss Jodie Chapman. In particular, I would like to thank Miss Chapman for coordinating the delegation. If anyone looks at the agenda, they will realise it was very fast and furious.

Another great thing we got to see was how well our federal agents—in some respects, right across the world—are performing and what a magnificent job they are doing. We met with federal agent Jerry Morris in Ottawa and Washington; federal agent Mark Donavic in Rome; federal agent Peter Bodell and federal agent Ray Imbrano in The Hague, in the Netherlands; and federal agent Chris Lions in London. The great news about our federal agents overseas is the amount of access that they have to the highest levels of law enforcement in the countries we visited. You can see that the Australian Federal Police are totally trusted with the most sensitive information. That is a great thing for Australia.

For example, you only need to look at the relationship between the Netherlands and the two federal agents over there—bearing in mind that, sadly, the serious crime groups in the Netherlands are some of the main exporters of ecstasy to Australia. Sadly, Australia is per capita the highest user of ecstasy. We have had some great success working with the police agencies over there, and that simply comes down to trust. They are happy to work with the Australian Federal Police because they know that they can be trusted. To mums, dads and Australians on the streets, that means that they are preventing serious drugs coming into this country. One example was a four-tonne seizure of drugs that they stopped coming into Australia.

We also had great assistance from our ambassadors and high commissioners: Amanda Vanstone in Italy; the Ambassador to Austria, Peter Shannon; Mr Tim Fischer in the Holy See; the High Commissioner to Canada, Justin Brown; John Dauth, the High Commissioner to the United Kingdom; and Mr Stuart, the Deputy Chief of Mission in the United States of America.

I strongly suggest that people read the report but, if they do not read it, I note that in chapter 5 we had some key recommendations. It is quite obvious how important it is to follow the money trail. We went all around Italy speaking to the anti-mafia police. They brought down the mafia by simply going after the money. They have these amazingly strong powers, which hopefully Australia can get. It is similar to the unexplained wealth legislation. Every agency we went to in Italy that dealt with the mafia kept on naming Melbourne as one of the places that mafia figures in Italy transfer their money to. In Australia we are a key target for money laundering, particularly Melbourne. That surprised the delegation because we were not hearing it from just one agency—we were hearing it from agency after agency. That is something that our law enforcement agencies in Australia must seriously look at.

We need measures to actually prevent organised crime. That was another important aspect. Having unexplained wealth legislation is the type of thing that will take the incentive away. Taking away the incentive and stopping people getting involved in organised crime is something that it is vitally important that we achieve.

We heard the member for Werriwa talk about the Italian national police and Mr Rafael Grassi, who basically said that the mafia figures are prepared to spend a lot of time in jail if they can keep hold of the assets once they get out. In my experience in the Victorian Police Organised Crime Squad, a number of crooks would actually tell us, ‘As long you don’t take the money from me, I’m happy to plead guilty.’ The biggest thing they were always concerned about was the money trail and what it meant for them.

The way governments around the world are dealing with various issues is interesting. Like us, both the UK and Canada have a street gang problem. One of the issues they looked at is using diversion programs to get young people out of street gangs. One of the big problems they have is that, once you enter a street gang, it is actually very difficult to get out of that gang. I know that in the M-13 gang in America if you try to leave a contract is put out on you and you get murdered. One of the things they are looking at over there—and which has been working effectively—is putting some sort of diversionary program in place for those people who try to leave a gang so that they can say to other gang members: ‘I cannot actually go to the gang because I have got this order. If I go back before the courts, I get a harsher penalty.’

How did America deal with tackling serious and organised crime? Through the RICO law, which is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisation law. I will go into that further shortly. In Italy, as the member for Werriwa mentioned, we heard about the importance of political will. What changed the turn of events in Italy was the murders of Judge Falcone and Judge Borsellino in 1992. That was when you had a huge public outcry. Finally they wanted something to happen, because the Mafia went on the front foot with bombings and mayhem. They really went out of their way to cause great harm.

How did things change in Canada? Sadly, the Hells Angels and Rock Machine were having a huge war in the late 1990s and an 11-year-old boy, Daniel Desrochers, died as a result of a car bomb outside a bikie club house. It was amazing how many people were killed during this war and how violent it got. I remember that in 1986 at the Copenhagen Airport the Hells Angels, using machine guns, ambushed the Bandidos. If you want, you can go to YouTube and look at the history documentary of the Quebec Hells Angels. Their present leader, ‘Mom’, basically said that he ran their state. He was in charge of the state and he was ordering hits on prison officers. They went to such an extent that finally the public called on the Canadian governments to do something about it. That is the political will which is required.

If we look at what has been happening in Australia recently with our outlaw motorcycle gangs we find that we need a national approach. It is vitally important. I know I have spoken many times about the cutbacks to the Australian Crime Commission. To me the obvious way to go forward and tackle this is with a national approach, through the Australian Crime Commission.

I must give credit to Senator David Johnston. When he was in the position of Minister for Justice and Customs he wanted this committee, under the previous government, to look at ways of dealing with organised and serious crime—in particular the outlaw motorcycle gangs. The committee heard that the Canadian model was definitely the way to go forward—that we should use the Canadian approach. The committee hearing revealed to us, through the Australian Crime Commission going overseas and meeting officials from Canada, that everything was going fine and dandy but a problem arose when they brought in a charter of human rights. It made things a lot more difficult for the simple reason that that charter guaranteed a freedom of association.

If you look at what is happening around Australia at the moment with these outlaw motorcycle gangs you find that one of the bases for being so effective is that as a criminal enterprise they are very well structured and they obviously associate with each other. I know that Canada has issues in dealing with this. I know it was never the intention of the charter rights to give the law enforcement agencies a hard time but that is precisely what has happened.

Overall, I would like to thank all the members of the delegation. I truly believe—especially with the unexplained wealth legislation—that this is a great step forward for law enforcement in this country in their fight against serious and organised crime.