Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Chair, I seek your guidance. I seek to move some amendments, but I have some questions to ask before that occurs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Proceed with your questions and then we will determine the amendments.

The Greens are seeking to move two amendments together. It is important to understand that these amendments are merely to oppose the schedules in the bill which would remove the judicial discretion as to whether a person who is subject to unexplained wealth proceedings can use their assets to defend themselves, to seek legal advice and to defend the application to seize those assets from them. We have heard some discussion from the minister about the problems that are posed in some cases where a person who is subject to unexplained wealth proceedings may wish to dissipate their assets by having protracted legal proceedings. These Greens amendments would not prevent a court apprised of all the information and evidence that is relevant to making a decision not to allow a person subject to the proceedings to use their assets; they merely seek to oppose the complete removal of any judicial discretion as to that. So it does not mean that the court could not order that a restrained person could not use their restrained assets for a legal defence; it merely means that it will remain a possibility for a judicial officer before the court to decide whether or not a person can use their assets.

The issue at the nub of the government's defence of these far-reaching amendments is clear from the statement that was made by the minister earlier today. He said to the effect that this legislation is designed to turn the tables on criminals to force them to prove that their wealth has been lawfully acquired. Therein lies the assumption. The assumption is that these proceedings will only ever be brought against criminals who have unlawfully acquired wealth and it is therefore in everyone's interest for the government to be able to bring that proceeding. The difficulty starts when you actually allow yourself to consider the possibility that governments do not always get these matters right, that the person against whom the proceedings are being brought may not be a criminal and that, in fact, the wealth was legitimately acquired. And then you can see the justification for potentially allowing the person to use their assets—which, in the case I am posing, have been lawfully acquired—to defend themselves from this government action. Minister, what is the evidence—there is no evidence in the explanatory memorandum—that the existence of this judicial discretion has been misused or has jeopardised the outcome of unexplained wealth proceedings in the past?