Senator CHAPMAN (2:17 PM) —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and Customs. Will the minister advise the Senate of the government's proposal to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes? How will this build on the Howard government's Tough on Drugs strategy? Is the minister aware of any policy alternatives?

Senator ELLISON (Minister for Justice and Customs) —Senator Chapman has asked a very important question. Earlier this year, senators will recall that I announced the proceeds of crime initiative, which will include a civil based forfeiture—that is, you will not have to wait until you convict somebody before taking their ill-gotten gains from criminal activity. The government is looking at making it unprofitable to be involved in crime. It is looking at crimes such as drug trafficking, people smuggling and money laundering. It is looking at nabbing the proceeds of crime from areas where there is all too much incentive to become involved in organised crime.

I was interested to read in the paper today that Labor has come up with a bill in relation to the proceeds of crime. The bill is a copy of the New South Wales legislation, which is now five-years old. Labor has not even bothered to look at the evolving face of criminal activity in the world today, which keeps abreast of modern technology. It has simply copied the New South Wales legislation.

What you do not see in this legislation is the power to give a notice to produce so that law enforcement agencies can get that essential information on the proceeds of crime from financial agencies. There is no provision for the repatriation of assets in the bill so that someone who has benefited from criminal activity and stashed the loot overseas can be made to bring it back to Australia. You do not see that. There is nothing in the bill about the proceeds from literary works so that a person who has been convicted of a crime cannot profit from their story about their criminal activity. You do not see that in Labor's bill.

If the opposition were serious about the proceeds of crime, they would put these sorts of measures in their bill. They would keep abreast of modern technology. They would keep abreast of organised crime and its modern methods. But what have they done? They have adopted the policy-lazy approach of copying the New South Wales legislation. The government is proposing a comprehensive and thorough approach to the proceeds of crime in consultation with law enforcement agencies, which know best where to look for these proceeds of crime and particularly how to go about it.

The Labor bill proposes that a court be involved in this process. There is some constitutional query about that; they have obviously not thought it through. It is very important that the government gets this initiative right. The government is serious about getting tough on drugs and tough on organised crime. I note that this bill, which forms part of a 10-point Beazley plan—

Senator ELLISON —I hear Senator Bolkus interjecting. He might want to explain why, in the 10-point plan that Labor has put forward, there is not even a full page—out of 28 pages—on drug education. He might want to explain why, in Labor's plan on how to deal with drugs, it concentrates instead on heroin prescription trials, how it will go soft on drugs and how it will work with state governments in relation to prescribing heroin. If Labor was dinkum on getting serious about crime and drugs, it would join the government in its initiatives to nab the proceeds of crime and to develop a tough on drugs policy. Instead, it has adopted the policy-lazy approach of copying the New South Wales legislation, which is now five-years old and does not meet the modern requirements that are needed in order to fight organised crime.