Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I would like to speak today on the Auditor-General's report No. 43 of 2016–17, Performance audit: proceeds of crime. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a very interesting piece of legislation, and I thought that today I would just put on the record a little bit of the history of how this came about and reflect on the findings of the ANAO. The initial legislative confiscation scheme was established by the Commonwealth in the middle of the 1980s, and it arose out of the 1983 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. I think we need to keep mindful of the origins of this particular piece of legislation, because it was intimately connected with drugs. I know that drug trafficking and the concerns about drug use in our community—poly drug use and particularly ice—are very prevalent right now. They should be at the front of our minds.

Since the 1980s, there have been a range of confiscation schemes, and they have been amended in a number of ways. I think it is quite instructive to have a look at the report here. The ANAO were generally pretty positive in their response to this, but they did put on the record some facts that I think are worth putting out into public conversation. If, on the balance of probabilities, a person has committed a serious offence and property is considered to be the proceeds or the instrument of an offence, the property can be taken from the person who has received it through the benefits of criminal activity. In 2015-16, property with an estimated recovery value of $57.4 million was forfeited, and there are a number of ways in which this can be acquired. In 2015-16, $59.7 million was transferred into the Confiscated Assets Account, and at July 2016 the balance of the account was $112.6 million. That is no small amount. When I think about what this is supposed to do and what $112.6 million could do, I have some serious questions I would like to put on the record today.

The Attorney-General's Department gives advice to the Minister for Justice on how to spend these confiscated assets and funds, and it is prescribed by section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act that there are four ways in which they should be expended:

(a) crime prevention measures;

(b) law enforcement measures;

(c) measures relating to treatment of drug addiction;

(d) diversionary measures relating to illegal use of drugs.

I found reading that little part of the report very interesting, because, when you look at the way in which the funds have been expended by this government since its acquisition of power in 2013, it looks like most of the money is going to crime prevention measures and law enforcement measures and not to measures relating to the treatment of drug addiction or diversionary measures relating to illegal use of drugs. While that did not cause any particular concern for the ANAO in terms of how the money is being gathered, held and reported, I think it raises serious questions about the focus of this government in responding to the reality of great need right across the country in regions and in cities for access to drug rehabilitation and to the preventative capacity that communities need.

It was very instructive to see that, of the significant expenditure, $51.3 million went to the Australian Federal Police and $28.9 million to the Australian Crime Commission. The New South Wales police got $12 million and the Victorian police $8.4 million—there were no other states; I thought that was pretty interesting—and money went to a number of other entities that were about crime management. Youth Off the Streets was the only program that I could see that got a significant amount of money which was for intervention outreach, but I could not see, among the non-government, community organisation and local council funding pool, any recipients of funds that were directed at encouraging people into treatment or providing treatment options. I think that that is something that needs to be pursued. That being said, the ANAO did indicate that there was room for improvement in the investment of these funds to try and maximise the value of this fund going forward.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.