Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014. I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised, particularly by opposition members.

In particular, a number of opposition members have erroneously claimed that this bill is almost word-for-word identical to the previous unexplained wealth bill that was introduced by Labor in 2012. That bill, which was introduced but never passed, was in this parliament for close to a year. Despite the now opposition's comments about their commitment to unexplained wealth reform, for a whole year they could not find time within their legislative program to actually deal with it.

That bill would only have implemented six of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—an excellent committee, a committee whose views are always worth listening to in my view. As members would be aware, they did a comprehensive inquiry into Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws. The report that they prepared has formed the basis for how we have constructed this bill. We are implementing more of the recommendations from that committee report than Labor's legislation was going to.

Despite the claim that has been made by the member for Moreton and a number of his colleagues that this bill does not go far enough, the two additional recommendations that I have referred to compared to Labor's bill will streamline affidavit requirements for preliminary unexplained wealth orders and will repeal duplicate affidavit requirements with respect to these orders, which was recommendation 8 of the parliamentary joint committee. Also, it will include a statement in the Proceeds of Crime Act's objects clause about undermining the profitability of criminal enterprise, which was the first recommendation that was made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

The remaining recommendations of the committee have already been implemented, or cannot be implemented solely by changes to Commonwealth law. Essentially, we have implemented all of the recommendations that have been made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement where we have been able to. I do congratulate that committee, which was chaired by a Labor member of parliament at the time when they produced this report, for the excellence of that report. It has provided the Commonwealth with some very worthwhile guidance, I think, for how we can frame this legislation.

Some examples of where we have not been able to implement the recommendations are recommendations 3 and 4, which relate to amendments to clarify the role of the Australian Crime Commission with respect to unexplained wealth proceedings. The government continues to consider the feasibility of these amendments but within the confines of the constitutional advice that we are getting from the Attorney-General's Department. Whilst these issues remain under consideration the Crime Commission will continue to rely on the existing provisions of the ACC Act to assist in proceeds of crime proceedings.

Recommendation 7 of the report, related to allowing the Australian Taxation Office to use information gained through telecommunications interception in the course of joint investigations by task forces prescribed under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 for the purpose of the protection of public finances. The recommendation is being considered in the context of the government's broader consideration of potential reforms to the telecommunications interception regime. As members would be aware, we are conducting a broad review of the interception of telecommunications. This particular recommendation of the committee forms part of that review.

The government will continue to consider options for implementing these remaining recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, including options to implement recommendations via regulations. It might be that we would not need to legislate again. It might be possible that we could implement some of the recommendations by regulation. But as I have previously said, this bill gives effect to the vast majority of the recommendations that have been brought down by that excellent committee.

In addition to this, the government is actively pursuing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity recommendations regarding a national unexplained wealth law. Several opposition members also referred to the report by former police commissioners, Mr Ken Moroney and Mr Mick Palmer, into options to enhance national arrangements for unexplained wealth. Whilst the report has not been made public, it has been provided—in most cases—personally by me to all police and justice ministers around the country for their proper consideration.

The member for Moreton was right when he said that Labor was unable to break the deadlock on this issue with the states and territories. It made several attempts to convince the states to sign up to a Commonwealth-led scheme. He is right in saying that effort was made, but like so much associated with the previous Rudd and Gillard governments, even when they had a good idea, such as implementing national unexplained wealth laws, they really had no idea how to go about cooperating with the states to actually implement it. What you do not do is brief the media about what you are going to do and then brief the states afterwards—which of course is what happened in this instance. I can assure you that at our first meeting with the states and territories where we discussed this, the anger that was felt by those states and territories, including Labor run states and territories, about the way they had been treated by the previous government meant that there was absolutely no way they were going to agree to a national unexplained wealth regime while they were being treated in that way by the Commonwealth. If you are going to try and get agreement with people, the first thing that you should do is talk to them and explain what it is that you are trying to achieve and why you believe it will be good for the country. In government, Labor, for some unknown reason, refused to do this with the states and territories, and the states and territories responded appropriately by not being that cooperative. I appreciated their concerns and, as soon as the government changed, it was raised with me that the states and territories would appreciate being treated in a different way by the new government. We have certainly done that since we came to office. Indeed, this issue is going to be further discussed at the second meeting of the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council which will meet in Geelong next Friday, 3 October.

I am not going to give a running commentary on negotiations with the states, but the idea and principles behind a national unexplained wealth regime are very sound. I have been talking to both state police ministers and state justice ministers or attorneys-general. I hope that by using that approach, where we do not negotiate through the pages of the media but instead we negotiate face-to-face—I went and visited all of the ministers over the course of the past year—that we will come to a reasonable agreement with Commonwealth and states cooperating to make sure that criminals will have the money that they make through their behaviour confiscated.

The member for Moreton has noted that this bill does not contain new provisions relating to the work of the Australian Crime Commission. The amendments that were proposed by the PJCLE that relate to the Australian Crime Commission have either already being implemented or raise quite complex legal issues for consideration. The government has taken the view that the remaining measures in this bill should not be held up by the work that is going on in relation to those issues, and that we should pass the vast majority of the recommendations of the parliamentary joint committee while we are working through some of the constitutional implications that have been raised in relation to the Australian Crime Commission's role in unexplained wealth proceedings.

Recommendation 2 from the parliamentary joint committee proposed the amendment of Commonwealth legislation to allow the Crime Commission board to issue a determination on unexplained wealth to enable the ACC to use its coercive powers to provide evidence in support of unexplained wealth proceedings. This recommendation was considered, but it has been determined that the ACC can already use its coercive powers to investigate matters relating to relevant federal criminal activity. Evidence gathered by the ACC is generally available for use in unexplained wealth proceedings.

Recommendations 3 and 4 relate to amendments to clarify the role of the ACC with respect to unexplained wealth proceedings. We have considered the recommendations that were made by the committee but, as I highlighted earlier, these recommendations raise very complex legal issues and very complex constitutional issues. They require further consideration which we are progressing at the moment through the Australian Crime Commission and the Attorney-General's Department. Whilst these issues are being actively considered by the government, the ACC will continue to use its existing powers to assist in proceeds of crime proceedings.

There were many comments made by opposition members about federal law enforcement's funding position. The government was left with a very difficult situation when we came to office in relation to Commonwealth law enforcement because the previous Labor government did not support Commonwealth law enforcement agencies. They cut $120 million from the Australian Federal Police between the fiscal years 2010-11 and 2013-14. They cut $30 million and 88 staff from the Australian Crime Commission between 2007-8 and 2013-14. To put that in context for Australia's criminal intelligence agency, that is about a third of its budget and about a third of its personnel. They really crippled the ability of the Australian Crime Commission to do its job while they were in office. For six years, under Labor, this was an agency that was not supported; now that we have come to office we need to go about rectifying the damage that was done. I am pleased to say we are doing that, but the damage was very extensive and it is going to take us some time to fix. Twenty-seven million dollars and 56 staff were cut from AUSTRAC between 2009-10 and 2013-14. The record of the Labor government in relation to Commonwealth law enforcement agencies is abysmal. The role we have had since coming to government is to rectify some of that damage. I am pleased to report to the House we are doing exactly that.

We will restore the capability of federal law enforcement agencies, given the cuts they suffered under the poor budget management of the previous government. But faced with the difficult fiscal situation we are in, we need to do that gradually. We have recently allocated $77.3 million to the Australian Federal Police as part of the $630 million counter-terrorism package and that is a very significant investment in Commonwealth law enforcement. Other agencies such as the Crime Commission will get over $20 million, and AUSTRAC will get the same amount to pursue objectives under that counter-terrorism package as well.

Several members have used this bill to highlight the views regarding the government's Safer Streets program, which is funded by proceeds of crime. Again, unlike the former government, we are actually using the proceeds of crime—money we take from criminals that they have gained through their criminal activities—to fight crime. The previous government took money from proceeds-of-crime proceedings—from criminals—and they refused to spend it. They used it to prop up their dodgy budget figures. We said we were not going to stand for that and as soon as we came to government we reversed that, but it does not stop the Labor members from having the front to criticise what we are doing, which I find quite extraordinary.

We are committed to the Safer Streets program. It is an excellent program. It is an exceptionally good use of proceeds of crime money. It will fund $50 million worth of investment across the country over the course of the three years of the first Abbott government, which will assist state, territory and federal police to do their jobs. The member for Moreton—whose contribution I did not hear; I only had it reported to me by my staff—has clearly made a series of egregious errors. This does not surprise me, unfortunately. He stated in his contribution that the guidelines and eligibility criteria for the Safer Streets program are hidden. These are the secret guidelines that were raised by the shadow minister for justice. I thought I had comprehensively dealt with that allegation in the House. Not only have we published them on the internet, they actually have their own web address. If you go to a very useful site called Google and type in 'safer streets' and 'guidelines' it will be the first thing that comes up. I would advise the member for Moreton—who must not have been in the House the day the shadow minister for justice raised that particular allegation—to use 10 seconds of his time to do some research before he comes into this House and makes ludicrous claims.

I have very little time left to me, but I am very proud of this bill. This bill will make the lives of serious criminals in Australia much harder. We are implementing the recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, chaired by a Labor member at the time, the member for Fowler, who has done an excellent job in conjunction with his colleagues. I am proud of this bill and I commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context