Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to continue my remarks in support of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. By way of background to members who may not have been in the chamber yesterday evening, I was talking about how Western Australians want this parliament to take organised crime seriously, particularly in relation to the problems of people smuggling and cland­estine laboratories. It delves down a bit into the local crime issues in my electorate concerning the receiving of benefits from the confiscation of property from organised crime.

As the member for Swan, I do believe that members of parliament have an active role to play in working with the police to reduce crime. In the past, my office has managed to work with the residents of Baillie Avenue in East Victoria Park to get a crime prevention barrier erected. As I mentioned last night, after being informed of a drug house in operation at one of my constituent's surgeries, my office reported the matter to the Minister for Police and to the local police force and the house was raided days later.

I do believe that as members of parliament we can make a difference, and it was in this spirit that last Friday I went on after-dark patrol with officers of the Western Australia Police to see for myself the progress that is being made to tackle crime in the area. I thank the police for agreeing to take me on this patrol.

Mr Laming interjecting—

I will take the interjection from the member for Bowman as support for my after-hours patrol. I was particularly keen to inspect areas in East Victoria Park where several residents had contacted me about another local spike in crime. Only last week there were a number of gunshots fired outside Nando's near the park centre, which is a busy shopping complex in the heart of my electorate and only 200 metres from my electorate office.

During the patrol we encountered what the police believe to be a major source of crime and antisocial behaviour in a rundown area of land adjacent to Franklins Tavern in Hubert Street. The unlit area next to the late-night tavern is believed by police to be a staging post for criminal activity in and around Oats Street train station. Part of this activity may be the organised crime of drug dealing. I also saw evidence of homeless people sleeping on this land. It is important that these people are protected.

I have contacted the CEO of the Town of Victoria Park about this area and he has gone down to the area to personally inspect it. I will work with both the council and the state government to try and have this issue addressed. I have done a bit of research and one of the options for getting some funding to fix this could be the state government's Criminal Property Confiscation Grants Program Round 9. Some lighting may well be an effective solution too. In the meantime, although the police are doing the best they can, I would advise residents to exercise extreme caution in this area. Whilst I do support the bill, as it will be of some help in addressing the issue of organised crime, I urge the government to treat the issue with the highest level of seriousness as organised crime and its effects are an issue for the people of my electorate in Western Australia.

As the nature of some crime is intern­ational, it is important that Australia has solid arrangements for cooperating with foreign countries in the restraint and confiscation of assets for matters that cross borders. Australia cannot be seen as a safe haven for organised crime profits. Australian courts are able to register and enforce foreign orders—compromising, restraining, confis­cating and pecuniary penalty orders—over properties derived from serious criminal offences. Once such orders are registered in Australia they can be enforced as if they were an Australian order made under the Proceeds Of Crime Act. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, provisions in the International Crime Court Act 2002 and the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995 allow Australian courts to impose orders issued by the ICC.

The amendments in this legislation relate to the result of the decision of the recent High Court case of International Finance Trust Co. Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission, specifically raising consti­tutional issues in relation to chapter III of the Constitution. The bill amends section 34A of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, section 45 of the International War Crimes Tribunal Act 1995 and section 156 of the International Criminal Court Act 1995 to address issues raised by the High Court in the case of International Finance Trust Co. Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) HCA 49 (International Finance). The amendments provide the courts with a greater discretion over the registration of foreign orders but still require the courts to register a foreign proceeds of crime order unless it is contrary to the interests of justice to do so. Essentially, these amendments should resolve any constitutional issues arising from the International Finance case and ensure that the principle of reciprocity can continue.

In conclusion, I support the broad intent of this bill. However, given the worrying trend that we are seeing in organised crime across the nation, from the people-smuggling problem to the issue of clandestine labor­atories in Perth, I urge the government to do more to tackle organised crime. I also look forward to hearing the speech of the member for Cowan on this issue as well. I know that he has a deep interest in the issues of organised crime and crime prevention in his electorate as well.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. The coalition supports the efforts of this bill to strengthen our existing legal structures to register proceeds of crime orders. It follows the initiatives of the previous government in its resolve in these matters. We are always happy to support the government when they move in a direction that is consistent with the policies and practices that we ourselves employed when we were in government. Our issue comes when they decide to walk away from measures that have proved in the past to work and to go in different directions.

The topic of this speech is not that of broader border protection issues. The government obviously chose to go in a different direction on border protection three years ago, and we can see the consequences daily. But, on this matter, the government have decided to go in a similar direction to the coalition. Obviously, when they are engaged in good policy in a favourable direction in these matters they will get the support of this side of the House. The aim of these amendments is to uphold our current frameworks for rendering assistance to foreign countries, international tribunals and the International Criminal Court in registering proceeds of crime orders and to ensure these laws continue to function as they were originally intended. At its heart, this bill is about protection. It is about strengthening our borders and protecting the Australian people from subversion and violation by international crime syndicates. Where once we spoke of borders as clear pencil lines on a map, we are now called to defend not only the literal but also the figurative borders: expansive matrixes and parameters within electronic global-banking interfaces.

Organised crime is insidious. Up to $15 billion each year is lost because of it, according to the Australian Crime Commission. At least $10 billion a year is ripped from the spreadsheets of Australian businesses—money that could be spent across a dozen worthy legal sectors. The member for Gorton was absolutely right when he observed:

… money is the lifeblood of organised crime and if we can stop the money flow we can stop organised criminals in their tracks.

It is vital that Australia retains the right to confiscate assets and profits resulting from crimes committed overseas. Our borders must be stronger and we must be ever vigilant of the dangers that lurk not only beyond our checkpoints and ports but also within.

We talk increasingly of the global village. We celebrate the breaking down of boundaries and the ease with which we can travel the globe. But, as geographic barriers are increasingly porous and transcended, there is a pressing need to ensure border protection and law enforcement remains an utmost priority. We cannot do that without the international cooperation that this bill strives to sustain. Criminal syndicates have become increasingly sophisticated in their use of technology and the intricacies of their arrangements. Assets derived from criminal activities and nefarious dealings are often moved offshore to avoid detection and confiscation. Gone are the hackneyed days where smugglers gathered in hazy dockside inns swapping wads of cash or pockets of doubloons. Nowadays, the criminals are not so easily defined or discernible. But where a person has committed an offence in a foreign country and the proceeds from that crime are stashed in Australia, we must be able to enforce foreign orders and to take action. I agree with the assertion from the minister at the table that Australia must not be seen as a safe haven for criminals and their ill-gotten gains. This nation is not a secret storage space for tainted money and we must actively work to ensure we do not become a new overseas tax-haven bank account.

The coalition have a historic commitment to border protection and the fight against international organised crime, as outlined by my colleague the member for Stirling and the shadow minister in this area. We are proud of this legacy and we continue to uphold and cement it. It was the Howard government who established the Australian Crime Commission in 2002, a cooperative venture to pool the resources of the state and Federal Police to investigate serious crime. The ACC remains a successful venture, despite the Labor government's attempts to sabotage it by slicing funding and cutting staff. That same government has axed 340 jobs from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service over two years. A recent Customs' annual report showed that just 4.3 per cent of sea cargo is X-rayed and just 0.6 per cent of sea cargo physically examined. Yet the number of reported consignments for air and sea cargo has leapt significantly and will continue on that upward trajectory for the next four years. Less cargo will be inspected in spite of the burgeoning volume. By reducing the amount of cargo checked, Labor are leaving us open and exposed. As someone who represents a part of Sydney that is very close to Port Botany and also Sydney airport, many of my constituents are involved in the logistics and transport business, and in activities around the waterside as well as the airside, and it is important that we have these matters fully attended to.

Meanwhile, 11,533 people have arrived on 230 boats since Labor started to unwind the coalition's proven border protection and asylum policies in August 2008. The AFP have their hands full dealing with the incidents that this government's attitudes have created. By unwinding the border protection regime that they inherited, they have put inordinate stress on those agencies and those officers tasked with protecting our borders, and the government are making the job far more difficult than it ever needed to be. The officers in the Australian Federal Police and in our Customs service do an outstanding job for Australia, but they struggle under extreme pressure. And I extend that same commendation to the officers who work in our immigration dep­artment. These are difficult jobs and the processing and challenges that they are now confronted with because of the changes that this government have made to border protection policy have only made their job even more difficult. While measures such as the one brought by the government to the House in this bill today are supported and are worthy, it does not take away from the fact that this government's other policy failures are making the jobs of those who are entrusted with protecting our borders more difficult.

We need to send a strong and clear message when it comes to organised crime and border protection, not a hastily cobbled together, cut-and-paste model that enc­ourages people to flout the law, more than being a deterrent. I remind the House that the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was introduced and passed under a coalition government. The act provides a scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law. The act also enables confiscated funds to be given back to the community to lessen the impact of crime upon Australia. The coalition remain committed to the strategy of being able to confiscate assets and profits resulting from crimes committed overseas. Under the law as it currently stands, we have a framework in place to work with foreign countries and confiscate benefits derived from foreign criminal offences where those assets are located in Australia.

Part VI of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 allows Australian courts to register and enforce orders issued by a foreign court. These foreign orders include restraining, confiscation and pec­uniary penalty orders over property derived from serious criminal offences. Once a foreign order is registered here, it can then be enforced as if it were an Australian order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act. But legislation is not static; it lives, it breathes and good legislation evolves with time as it is tried and tested. The 2009 High Court decision pertaining to New South Wales proceeds of crime related provisions shone a light on a potential legal conflict that could undermine these laws. This bill seeks to remedy that loophole.

We need to ensure the functions imposed on a court reflect the nature of judicial functions under chapter III of the Constitution. The amendments will allow a court greater discretion in determining whe­ther a foreign order should be registered and enforced in Australia or whether to hear an application for registration on an ex parte basis. The amended provisions will also necessitate a court to register a foreign order unless it considers it contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

We do not approve of the reckless way in which this Labor government has softened Australia's border protection strategies. We have said many times that they inherited a solution and they created a problem. The government have cut vital resources at a time of great need and destabilised well-established and proven policies for the sake of appeasing one element of their cons­tituency. But we welcome this bill as a step, albeit small, in the right direction—a dir­ection that was established by the coalition government.

Where this government heads in the right direction, they will get our support. The government seem to be seeking the adulation of the opposition almost on a regular basis, waiting for the coalition to support them. I would have thought that a government that was confident in its own policies would not constantly be seeking opposition support and adulation on a daily basis. We are happy to support them when they get it right. But if we think they are going in the wrong direction, we will say so. That is what an opposition does. It is an opposition's resp­onsibility to hold the government to account for good policy and not engage in any sort of bipartisan hubris purely for its own sake but embrace a spirit of bipartisanship where we firmly believe that the direction the government are taking is the right one.

On this occasion with this bill, they are heading in the right direction and they will receive support. If they would only head in the right direction in so many other areas, they might get the coalition's adulation that they crave. This government have become obsessed with the opposition. Every time they come to this place at question time or on other occasions, they spend their entire time debating the opposition about the opposition. They are full of advice for the opposition about how to be an opposition. I am sure the Australian people would love to give—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a point of order on relevance: perhaps the member for Cook could return to the bill itself.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the point of order from the member for Chifley. The member for Cook is certainly having a wide debate, and the bill does allow for that, I think. The title of the bill is Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Pro­ceeds of Crime Orders). 'Crime' obviously can cover a whole range of issues. The member for Cook has the call and will obviously be aware of the bill before the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was in the process of saying that we are supporting this bill.

Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—

It was in my first statement. If the minister at the table actually paid attention to the proceedings of the parliament, he would be very well aware that I was actually supporting his own bill. Finally, the minister has the adulation the government so often seeks from the opp­osition. My commentary was simply to make the point that where the government heads in the right direction it will get support from the opposition.

The government is very sensitive on this point. If it wants to raise points of order here on a Thursday morning, when the opposition is in the process of supporting one of its own pieces of legislation, and is so sensitive about comments from the opposition, then I suppose that suggests the level of sensitivity there is in the government. I can appreciate why the government would be so sensitive today. Fundamental Injustice Day mark 2 is on its way, and I can understand that the government feels very sensitive about these matters.

We are happy to support this bill today, because, for once, the government is following the good direction laid down by the previous government. If it would only do that more often then it would get the adulation it so constantly craves from the opposition. If the government would like to take up the role of the opposition, in which it thinks it could do a better job, I am sure the Australian people would be happy to provide that opportunity at the earliest opportunity. We would be happy to give the Australian people the opportunity to let the government get into opposition as quickly as they can, because the Australian people have had enough of this government and they urgently seek and demand an election to ensure that we can return to the path of good policy.

To the extent that this bill heads in that direction, it has the coalition's support. As a result, we support the passage of this bill, and I commend the bill to the House. I know those members opposite are feeling very sensitive today. They are feeling very touchy. They are very mindful of the events that took place a year ago. I am sure they will get through the day, but they might want to try to keep their seats and not express their oversensitivity too much, because they can expect a little more treatment on the topic as the day proceeds.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable members for Stirling, Fowler, Swan and Cowan for their contributions and even the member for Cook for his lame contribution to this debate on the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011. One might be forgiven for thinking that the opposition opposes the bill, having listened to the last contribution, the last 10 minutes of which was utterly irrelevant to the substance of the bill, but it is good to see the opposition accept the logic behind this bill. It is an important measure to ensure that we have in place a very important arrangement between countries to fight transnational crime. I would also like to comment on some points that were raised by the member for Stirling in this debate yesterday, which I will do once I go through some other matters.

Again, I thank all those who contributed to the debate on this bill. As all members have noted during this debate, crime is an insidious threat to the safety, stability and wellbeing of all nations. As criminals continue to exploit the benefits of new technologies and globalisation to pursue their illicit enterprises, so must the law evolve and adapt to respond to the threat. The Australian Crime Commission estimates that Australia loses between $10 billion and $15 billion to organised crime every year. Reports from the United Kingdom have estimated that organised crime costs their countries up to £40 billion each year. These are staggering amounts of money, as others have said, that could be well spent on legitimate purposes—on important areas of public policy.

On these figures alone, the cost of crime is obvious. As criminals use the proceeds of crime to fund further criminal activity, the ability to confiscate and restrain the financial and material benefits obtained from criminal enterprises is an important tool for law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, it is essential that criminals cannot escape the consequences of their criminal actions by moving the illicit proceeds of their crimes out of the reach of law enforcement authorities.

I take this opportunity to respond to some of the comments that have been made by the member for Cowan and the member for Stirling in relation to Mr David Hicks. Part 2-5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 enables action to be taken to prevent a person from earning profits by exploiting their criminal notoriety. This can apply to crimes against foreign law if the benefit is derived in Australia or is transferred to Australia. The member for Stirling and the member for Cowan questioned whether action would be taken against David Hicks under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the release of his personal memoir. A decision to commence literary proceeds action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is at the discretion of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prose­cutions, following an investigation by the Australian Federal Police. The Australian Federal Police has given a range of material to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for their consideration. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the likelihood of any future legal proceeding, but I must refute some of the very outlandish and unsubstantiated claims made by the member for Cowan with respect to that matter, and I can assure the House that that matter is being dealt with by the appropriate agencies in the appropriate manner. I will return to the substantive provisions of the bill. Depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains not only deters prospective criminal activity but also goes some way towards returning assets and property to their rightful owners. As reci­procity is the fundamental basis of international cooperation in criminal matters, these amendments will ensure that Australian authorities can enforce foreign orders over illegal assets that are located in Australia. Although the amendments are minor, they will ensure that Australia can continue to provide assistance to foreign countries in registering proceeds of crimes orders, and this will ensure legal loopholes do not prevent law enforcement authorities from pursuing criminal assets wherever they are found. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.