Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (4 March) . . Page.. 442 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

were helped by his notoriety. In my book, that is a kind of rehabilitation; it is ultimately and potentially a benefit to society.

How do street worker art programs with youth at risk-youth who have previously committed crimes-fit with this legislation? Arguably, a fairer way could be devised to take away artistic proceeds related directly to people exploiting the crime they have committed. The families of Chopper Read's victims may feel very affronted by a speaking tour, but what about the media profits from the exploitation of the sensational value of crime? What does it say about us if we lap it up as a society?

I think this is a more complex issue than potentially people thought when this bill was drafted. I think it is worth a re-think and I hope that members will do that.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for the Environment) (12.14): Mr Speaker, Ms Tucker's concerns are reflected in a number of other amendments around this vexed issue of profiting or benefiting from artistic or literary-however described-proceeds. The provisions contained in the bill are a fairly true reflection of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report on the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act and how to better target it to address issues particularly around serious or organised crime. These are issues that governments around Australia have determined through the COAG process at heads of government level to address seriously-that we need to take seriously our attack on crime, and in particular organised crime, in Australia.

I guess that determination arose in a way from the point that Mr Stefaniak made a minute ago around just how unsuccessful the existing proceeds of crime legislation is. It is derisory. Over the last two years, in total the ACT has managed to have forfeited, I think, something in the order of a grand total of around $50,000. The current legislation simply does not work, and that was the situation and the circumstance around Australia. The proceeds of crime legislation was not working in any jurisdiction. The power of the state was simply not equal to the power of organised crime, to the point that at the time one was forced perhaps to reflect on whether or not organised crime brought more resources to bear in the protection of their assets and their interests than the state was able to provide through the funding of police forces and directors of public prosecution.

Jurisdictions around Australia have been significantly unsuccessful in attacking the proceeds of crime. Look at our stats here in the ACT. The success rate has been a derisory. Mr Stefaniak mentioned $40,000 in the last year. I think over the last two years it is less than $50,000. The year before last it was almost nothing-$5,000 or something.

We have just been so unsuccessful. And you have to ask why. There is an issue here around the resources that crime brings to bear-the access that criminals have to very good advice; to the advice of top-line lawyers; the advice of top-line accountants; their own auditors; their capacity to launder their funds. They are enormously successful at what they do: at ripping off the community, robbing the community, and reinvesting their funds and not being detected; and, when detected and prosecuted, having arrived at schemes and arrangements to protect their ill-gotten gains.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .