Wednesday, 31 July 2024
Bills
Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024
Bills
Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024
Council’s amendments
The SPEAKER (10:11): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024 with amendments.
Ordered that amendments be taken into consideration immediately.
Message from Council relating to following amendments considered:
1. Clause 24, page 24, after line 8 insert –
“(4) For the purposes of an assessment of a person’s wealth under this section –
(a) property acquired more than 10 years prior to the application date is taken to have been lawfully acquired; and
(b) a benefit derived more than 10 years prior to the application date is taken to have been lawfully derived; and
(c) a service or advantage obtained more than 10 years prior to the application date is taken to have been lawfully obtained.
(5) In this section –
application date, for a person whose wealth is being assessed, means the date on which an application is made for an unexplained wealth order to be made against the person.”.
2. Clause 24, page 24, after line 32 insert –
“Note
A respondent’s wealth is taken to have been lawfully acquired if the wealth was acquired more than 10 years prior to the date on which an application is made for an unexplained wealth order to be made against the respondent – see section 40ZAAC(4).”.
3. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 45 –
‘45A New section 148 inserted
After section 147 of the Confiscation Act 1997 insert –
“148 Review of introduction of new unexplained wealth pathway by Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2024
(1) The Attorney-General must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of Division 1A of Part 4A of this Act and any provisions of this Act that support the operation of that Division.
(2) The review must be commenced no later than 3 years after the commencement of section 24 of the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2024.
(3) The review must be completed no later than 12 months after it commences.
(4) The Attorney-General must cause a copy of the review to be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.”.’.
That the amendments be agreed to.
The Allan Labor government is proud to have introduced into this place the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024. It has now been debated in the other place. There are some amendments that have been made to the bill which the government is willing and very prepared to support. This is a really important bill, and it goes to our government’s commitment to fighting organised crime at every step of the way and our zero tolerance for organised crime. It is part of our crackdown to ensure that career criminals are targeted and that they are held to account and in fact made to account for their use and enjoyment of any unexplained wealth. We will be seizing that unexplained wealth in order to send a very clear message to the organised crime bosses of Victoria that they will not be tolerated in the state of Victoria under an Allan Labor government. Criminals will be forced to prove how they acquired their wealth through legitimate means or face losing it entirely. On that note I commend the bill as amended to the house.
Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (10:14): In terms of these amendments, the opposition supports them, because they were actually our ideas in many ways.
Members interjecting.
Michael O’BRIEN: Well, members opposite might even want to know what they are, because I suspect they have not even read them yet. One of them is to put a three-year statutory review into these changes. Believe me, the government did not come up with that idea to actually review these changes.
Tim Richardson interjected.
Michael O’BRIEN: No, you did not, member for Mordialloc; these were opposition amendments. These are important, because for the first time the confiscation of unexplained wealth will not be dependent on a criminal offence having been proven. This bill is very different in that the amendments it makes mean that people can be liable to have to give up wealth even if a crime has not been committed, so because of that it is a very serious move.
We understand that in the efforts to tackle organised crime we need to do things differently, because I do not think the unexplained wealth laws have worked as effectively as we would have liked them to in the past. We understand why the government has introduced this bill, but we do think it is important that, given it is going a step beyond what has happened before – it does not require the proving of a criminal offence having been committed in order for that wealth to be confiscated – a statutory review of how these provisions are operating after three years is absolutely appropriate.
The other change in this bill which we are debating now is the limitation of 10 years on looking back to see wealth. I think that that is a reasonable outcome in the circumstances. I suspect if any member in this chamber was asked to justify something that had been acquired 20 years or 30 years ago, they might struggle a bit. Given the very harsh consequences that the bill provides for where people cannot explain where their wealth came from, I think having a decade limitation is a fair and reasonable balance to make sure that, yes, we can tackle organised crime but there is also an element of fairness in how we go about it.
These are amendments which the opposition supports. We do think that this new bill is worth a go. Whether the government has got it right or not remains to be seen. The government has made plenty of comments in the past and brought in legislation about tackling serious crime and tackling organised crime, and as we know, seeing other legislation the government will be bringing in later this year, it has not worked so far. I genuinely wish this bill success, because none of us want to see organised crime flourish in this state, whether it is in the community, in the drug trade or even on CFMEU building sites.
Motion agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.