Page 5958 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Territories and the Commonwealth in the latter half of the 1980s to combat crime and to ensure that major criminals do not get away, when they are caught, with the proceeds of their crime - their ill-gotten gains. We are talking, in certain cases, of many, many millions of dollars.
We are also talking about stopping really serious criminals - the drug barons, the big drug pushers and perpetrators of major white-collar fraud; cases which involve very large sums of money. Those crimes are at the more serious end of the criminal justice scale and, accordingly, it is quite wrong for people who might be caught, and perhaps serve significant terms of imprisonment, to be able to get out afterwards and reap the benefit of their ill-gotten gains. This legislation certainly has the support of the Liberal Party. As other speakers, Mr Connolly and Mr Collaery, have noted, it basically replicates the Commonwealth legislation, which has, in fact, been in place in the Territory now for three or four years, I understand.
Indeed, before I left the DPP we had established a proceeds of crime section there, and it had just started to apply the Commonwealth legislation with some effect, in terms of some of the major criminals in the Territory. I can recall, I think, a house being seized on one occasion, and bank accounts being seized, and the money trail being followed, or beginning to be followed, in a few other areas. This is absolutely essential legislation. The techniques of major criminals especially are very modern and, in many ways, some of the laws that are employed to counter major crime are still 50 or 60 years behind the times. This is very timely, essential legislation if we are going to be fair dinkum about combating major crime.
Mr Connolly has proposed a number of amendments. We have no real problem with them. It is important that the authorities involved with any sort of legislation such as this have relevant powers to combat crime. Some of the old style, nineteenth-century-type concepts have been changed in an effort to adequately counter the sophisticated crime that we experience in the latter half of the twentieth century. I think that has to be borne in mind. People should not be overly sensitive about that; otherwise, we can never effectively combat crime.
Mr Connolly's amendments take up matters which were drawn to our attention by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Members will note that his two major amendments - Nos 2 and 4 - relate to an occupier of premises giving the police a signed acknowledgment of consent to enter. Such provisions exist in other legislation; most recently, I think, the planning legislation that we passed. I am advised by Mr Connolly - because I have been out of the criminal area as far as courts are concerned since 1989 - that he understands that the police have a set pro forma, which they certainly would need, for someone to sign an acknowledgment. Certainly, quite often one of the big
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .