Page 3622 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will not canvass each of the discrete possible areas of reform. That is best left for when we see concrete proposals. I think they are detailed in the report, and certainly Mr Hanson touched on each of them this morning. However, one area I will discuss briefly is that of unexplained wealth provisions. The report identifies these as one possible addition to ACT law. These provisions are a good example of what I have discussed today in that they are a targeted strategy for addressing serious organised crime. Research and expert knowledge show that organised crime is primarily motivated by profit. Unexplained wealth provisions go straight to that motive and remove the incentive for organised crime—that is, under the provisions a court may order confiscation of wealth that is unable to be properly explained.
At the heart of these provisions is a reversal of the onus of proof in existing laws in the ACT surrounding confiscation of criminal assets. If such a proposal were to be brought forward, the ACT Greens would look at it carefully. Clearly, there is a proportional balance to be struck between removing the motivation for organised crime and upholding human rights. That is a proportional balance that I think can be struck in light of the strong evidence and support for such provisions.
Unexplained wealth provisions are a targeted strategy for addressing serious organised crime. A recent commonwealth inquiry into the legislative arrangements to outlaw serious and organised crime groups by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission found that such provisions are backed by nearly every law enforcement agency in the country. It is interesting to note that the inquiry was initially tasked with looking solely at the effectiveness of association-type offences. However, the inquiry broadened its scope to look at “following the money trail” strategies after gauging the weight of evidence in favour of them.
That said, unexplained wealth provisions are not immune from human rights issues. I reiterate the point I made before and say that, should the government decide to move on unexplained wealth provisions, the Greens will look very closely at the proposal. We will be looking at it in a cool-headed and responsible manner to ensure that we get the right laws for the ACT.
The last point I would like to touch on relates to the public comments made by the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, in relation to the NSW laws passed earlier this year at the height of the media frenzy following the incident at Sydney airport. These are included at annex E of the report. Mr Cowdery draws out a number of troubling features of the New South Wales provisions which I would like to discuss briefly today. Firstly, the New South Wales crime of offence by association casts a very wide net that could be applied to any small and informally organised group.
The potential for the provisions is very broad, much broader than laws of criminal conspiracy and certainly much broader than just outlaw motorcycle gangs. Mr Cowdery makes the point that the decision on where to draw the line is unclear and may be made by the unelected police commissioner with little legislative guidance. I touched on this point when I spoke in April and I will not go over it now. It is important that groups that are not intended to be caught up should not be caught up in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .