Senator McMULLAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Is the Minister aware of the proposal by the New South Wales Government to introduce a Proceeds of Crime Bill? Is this legislation, as proposed, likely to complement the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act passed by this Parliament in 1987?

Senator TATE —I am aware of proposals emanating from the New South Wales Government to pass a Proceeds of Crime Bill in this session, or perhaps in the spring session, of its Parliament. Indeed, it would be a good thing if that particular jurisdiction complemented and supplemented the already magnificent legislation passed by this Parliament which deals at a national level with those convicted of very serious Federal offences, such as the importation of drugs into this country, or those who commit major fraud against the Commonwealth. It does this by providing that a gaol sentence in those situations would not be a sufficient punishment; the convicted persons should be stripped of the assets they have accumulated over the years through their various nefarious activities. Indeed, upon conviction, unless the convicted persons can show, under Commonwealth legislation, that they have acquired their assets lawfully, then the palatial home, the flash car, the souped-up speedboat, the horse stud, and the jewellery shall be stripped from them. This is an important affirmation of the proposition that crime should not pay. The aphorism runs that crime does not pay; we know that it often does-in large dollars for those who are tempted to prey particularly on vulnerable young Australians in relation to drug trafficking.

Therefore, it is extremely important that all jurisdictions move to strip criminals of their assets, not simply as a punishment additional to a gaol sentence that might be handed down on that individual but also as a means of starting to break up the economic base from which criminal activities are mounted in this country. If a person is in gaol and the assets are left undisturbed, clearly his confederates in crime or others may use those assets to continue financing the criminal activity in which the particular syndicate or organised criminal activists might be engaged. Indeed, it is because it is important to break up the assets that are accumulated by these syndicates that this legislation was passed by the Federal Parliament.

Coincidentally, I noticed in today's Age an article by Mr Peter Clark, a member of the National Crime Authority, who said:

The creation of enormous wealth by illegitimate means poses, in any society, a real threat to legitimate business.

He spoke about the way in which organised criminals can launder their money into legitimate businesses and, in his final paragraph, he said:

Just ask those legitimate businessmen in the clothing industry, the building industry, fruit and vegetable markets in New York and listen to their replies.

It is very important that we follow the money trail, that we find where the assets of crime are transmuted into apparently legitimate businesses and strip the criminals of those assets including, as I say, those that are transformed into legitimate business enterprises, otherwise we will find that the legitimate businesses in this country are subservient to organised criminal interests. That must be prevented at all costs. I am pleased that the New South Wales Government is pursuing this form of legislation. If complemented by legislation in all other jurisdictions, it will help to ensure that crime does not pay in this country.