Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report of the Inquiry into the legislative arrangements to outlaw serious and organised crime groups. The terms of reference for the committee were to examine the effectiveness of legislative efforts to disrupt and dismantle serious and organised crime groups and associations within these groups. Although no-one doubts the need to work constructively to limit the scope and opportunities for criminal groups, the contentious points are how to define a criminal group and when and how to act against it. While Australia faces the threat of an increase of organised crime, especially transnationally based criminal activity, we are still unable to offer a universally supported definition of what constitutes a criminal group. And, as we are all aware, we cannot hope to control something that we cannot even define.

Serious and organised crime costs our nation approximately $10 billion per annum causing untold financial and social havoc in the process. Each year these criminal groups become more sophisticated, adopt more advanced technologies, operate more fluidly across international borders and perform in more flexible and unstructured ways. Given the enormous amount of money made from organised crime, we as a nation need to push for strong and consistent unexplained wealth provisions and proceeds of crime laws. Such provisions offer significant benefits for disrupting the operations of criminal groups through:

preventing crime from occurring by ensuring profits cannot be reinvested in criminal activity …

disrupting criminal enterprises;

targeting the profit motive of organised criminal groups; and

ensuring that those benefiting most from organised crime … are the ones captured by the law.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 contains unexplained wealth provisions, and I fully support the committee’s recommendation that the bill be passed. I am also equally supportive of the recommendation calling on the Commonwealth government to examine a more integrated model of asset recovery with one agency responsible for investigation and prosecution. This, together with the continued civil forfeiture regime of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and unexplained wealth provisions, will allow law enforcement in this country to limit the capacity of organised crime groups to conduct and grow their businesses.

I note one concern in the report handed down by the delegation to North America, Europe and the United Kingdom. Each nation that was visited expressed concern that attempts to introduce a charter of human rights or similar expanded human rights mechanisms lead to a diminished capacity of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute criminal activity. Criminal groups will exploit every possible loophole at their disposal, and this includes using human rights as a platform for their own preservation. Far from suggesting that human rights should be secondary to law enforcement, I would simply ask governments, both state and Commonwealth, to consider the impact of a charter of human rights on effective law enforcement.

A second concern is one issue that was heavily discussed and hotly contested during the inquiry. The introduction of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 by the South Australian government holds implications for all levels of government. The act establishes a framework under which a group or club can be declared an organised crime group. The original impetus behind the act was the actions of certain motorcycle groups and the media attention drawn to the criminal activities of such groups. The main points of contention were the labelling of individuals as criminals simply through their membership of a group, freedom of association and the effectiveness of the act in disrupting criminal activities. I personally feel that the jury is still out on whether this approach is the best one. I am not convinced that the blanket banning of motorcycle groups does effectively disrupt the operations of criminal activities. My concern is that the ban may simply drive the activities further underground, thus making it harder to tackle. Criminals are highly unlikely to cease their activities just because a ban is in place. They will continue to conduct themselves in a criminal way and will continue to recruit just as heavily to their ranks. The only people who are likely to be disrupted through such a ban are those members who act in a law-abiding manner and associate out of shared experiences and mutual interests.

Finally, I would like to thank those witnesses that came before the committee and those that gave written submissions. I would like to put on record my thanks to the secretariat and my Senate and House of Representatives colleagues on this committee and also particularly note the chairman’s contribution to this report. I also encourage all senators to read this report because the increase in organised crime in this country is very, very concerning. I commend the report to the Senate.