Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I have reservations about Senator McKim's amendment. I think that the position by Senator Collins fairly sets out the position in terms of the appropriate safeguards. I understand why Senator McKim has put this amendment up, but this is a very difficult policy area to deal with. When you are dealing with organised criminal groups, how do you best deal with it? I respect Senator McKim's motivations and the reasons he has put this up. Obviously, the bill needs to be monitored as to whether it has unintended consequences.

I want to spend one or two minutes talking about the confiscation of assets, which is an important tool to fight organised crime. In my home state of South Australia, my state colleague the Hon. John Darley MLC has been grappling with the state Labor government's legislation on confiscating all of the assets of an organised criminal group or, in particular, a drug dealer, where a conviction has been recorded. The stumbling block, sadly, in the case of the South Australian Labor government, is that my colleague Mr Darley put up a very reasonable amendment to hypothecate a percentage of that additional revenue for drug rehabilitation purposes.

I know the federal government has done some very good work with the National Ice Taskforce and put additional funds into these issues, but—and I say this not to make a political point; not at all—I simply ask respectfully of the minister to take on notice whether the government will consider hypothecating or at least allocating a percentage of this additional revenue to drug rehabilitation services.

I speak to too many constituents who have family members with a serious drug problem, especially with crystal meth. It causes such damage and devastation to those individuals and their families. Family members tell me that they have to cash in their super, take out loans and borrow money from friends in order to have their loved one go to a rehabilitation clinic, whether here or overseas, that could cost many thousands of dollars. The comment that has been made in relation to drug rehabilitation services is that it is piecemeal. Funding is on an annual basis, not on a three-, four -or five-year basis, which is what you need in order to get appropriate staff. That is something that the Australasian Therapeutic Communities Association has said. Garth Popple, the executive director of We Help Ourselves, which runs residential treatment services in New South Wales and Queensland, has said that these one-year extensions are not adequate.

I urge the government that money be set aside from the proceeds of crime, which is what this bill is about, to go to additional revenue—not just swallowed up in general revenue—to actually help those in need, to help those individuals who are victims of a terrible addiction and their families. It causes such destruction. I think that, whatever side of the fence you are on with the drugs debate, we all agree that, if somebody has a serious substance-abuse problem, particularly with, for instance, crystal methamphetamine and heroin, they need help.

I raise this, and I would be grateful if the minister could acknowledge the comments I have made. Also, could the government take on board: what additional revenues are expected from this legislation, broadly; will there be a commitment to at least consider funding additional rehabilitation programs; and, also, in the context of this proceeds of crime bill, will you give those agencies that do terrific work out in the community more than this hand-to-mouth funding on a year-by-year basis? They cannot recruit staff, they cannot plan ahead and they cannot provide those long-term services that are needed to help people in the grip of these terrible addictions.