Page 2066 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
These amendments are urgent, as there is a public interest in commencing the unexplained wealth act as soon as possible and, without these amendments, questions are likely to arise as to whether a person may apply for property to be excluded from an unexplained wealth restraining order.
These amendments are minor in that they are consistent with amendments already adopted by the Assembly under the unexplained wealth act and continue the existing policy approach under part 6 of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act. The amendments extend the existing exclusion order provisions in part 6 of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 to apply to unexplained wealth restraining orders.
The effect of the amendment is to allow a person to make an application to the court in relation to property that is the subject of an application for an unexplained wealth restraining order or is restrained by an unexplained wealth restraining order. An application may be made either by the person in relation to whom the unexplained wealth restraining order has been made or is sought, or by another person who can establish that they have an interest in the property.
An application for an exclusion order cannot be made in relation to property that has already been used to satisfy an unexplained wealth order. The amendment sets out the criteria that the court must apply when making an exclusion order, including that the property is not tainted property and does not have evidentiary value in any criminal proceeding. The listed criteria broadly reflect the criteria under existing provisions in part 6 relating to the making of exclusion orders.
The amendment complements other human rights safeguards in the unexplained wealth scheme, such as the mechanism that allows for applications for living expenses and support for dependants. The amendment provides an important further safeguard for the unexplained wealth scheme to allow the court to make orders to exclude property from an unexplained wealth restraining order in appropriate circumstances. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (11.50): The Canberra Liberals will support these amendments. They appear to remove any doubt about the laws intended to cover unexplained wealth. It seems to be a loophole that has been picked up. I say to whoever did that in JACS: well done. That is good work. It certainly explains the adjournment of the matter last week, when Mr Ramsay came running in and waving his hands, and we all stopped. We were all curious to see what it was that would be coming forward. The Canberra Liberals are happy to support this and thank Mr Ramsay’s office, particularly Amy Kilpatrick, for her briefing.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video