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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (4 March) . . Page.. 439 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

vehicles. If we want to add anything they own to the penalty for a whole range of crimes, then let us be up-front about it and amend the Crimes Act.

Mr Stanhope gave examples of certain crimes which he said were heinous crimes and, as such, should all be included in this bill. But I have always understood that the rationale and justification for this bill have always related to organised crime-to corporate fraud and complex crime. That is why we have this particular legislative response, which does, as I have said, undermine some basic principles but which is justified because it deals with very complex crime.

We are moving into a very different range of crimes-I am not necessarily saying that they are not serious crimes-with this legislation and I do not think there is justification for that. As I said, the main justification is the need to combat corporate and organised crime. I understand that that was the main justification raised in the national discussion as well.

MS DUNDAS (12.02): The ACT Democrats will be supporting this minor change. Proximity, either temporal or spatial, is not proof that an asset is due to profits of crime and the onus should be on the territory or their agency to prove that the asset is tainted property. For example, confiscating a vehicle following a house-breaking incident does not necessarily mean that the car was a proceed of crime, and the definition should be changed appropriately. Hence, I will be supporting this amendment.

MRS CROSS (12.03): Mr Speaker, I have read the Greens' amendments and I will be supporting their amendment No 1. The seriousness of this bill cannot be overstated. However, it is important that, in attempting to deal with the seriousness, we do not allow overkill.

Clause 10 (2) is too broad because it refers to "any property found in the possession of an offender at the time of, or immediately after, the commission of the offence", and is taken to be property that was "used, or was intended by the offender to be used, in relation to the commission of the offence, unless the contrary is established by the offender". My concern is that these provisions may unfairly include the property of the innocent members of an offender's family. This provision is, therefore, too broad and, accordingly, I will be supporting Ms Tucker's amendment No 1.

MR STEFANIAK (12.04): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be opposing Ms Tucker's amendment. When I spoke during the in-principle stage of the bill I indicated that this bill basically replicates a Commonwealth bill and dovetails with what New South Wales and Victoria are already doing; that it is not nearly as severe as the Western Australian bill, which is going to be adopted by the Northern Territory and Tasmania; and that Queensland is going to adopt our bill.

I think it would be a retrograde step to take out clause 10 (2). I just draw to the attention of members looking to support the amendment that the subclause contains the proviso "unless the contrary is established by the offender". I appreciate that those members probably do not know what happens in a court, but those words mean that if the offender can show that, on the balance of probability, the car that just happened to be used was in

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