Tuesday, 30 July 2024

Bills

Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (15:33): As the shadow minister representing the Shadow Attorney-General, I am pleased to speak on this bill. I should start by thanking my colleague the Honourable Michael O’Brien in the other place for the work he has done on this bill and the consultation – the actual consultation – he has had with a range of stakeholders. The broad idea behind this bill is to create a new pathway for confiscating unexplained wealth. In fact it creates a third pathway for the government through the police and through the DPP to obtain assets from people who it believes are not worthy of them. The original confiscation pathways were established by the former Liberal–Nationals government in 2014. There are two pathways that were established to try to seek to get the ill-gotten gains of those who are serious criminal players. I do not think anyone wants to see criminals profiting from the damage they inflict on our community. Confiscating wealth acquired illegitimately reduces the incentive and makes criminals think twice about whether it is worth it.

That legislation, which was then passed with bipartisan support, provided two pathways. The first pathway can be called a person pathway. It required that a person with an interest in property valued over $50,000 was engaged in serious criminal activity. The second pathway, known as the property pathway, was based on a reasonable suspicion that property of any value was not lawfully acquired. The key difference between those two pathways and the new, third pathway that the government is proposing in this bill is that it requires there to be a link, an actual link, to criminality. The person pathway required for there to be a reasonable suspicion the person had engaged in serious criminal activity, and the property pathway also required a reasonable suspicion the property was not lawfully acquired. This bill, on the other hand, simply says that if the police, on reasonable suspicion, believe that a person cannot explain their wealth and that there is a $200,000 gap between the person’s explicable wealth and their inexplicable wealth, then the onus reverses, and it is up to the person to justify to the court how they got their assets. There is no requirement to demonstrate any criminal activity whatsoever. This goes to the heart of the problems with this bill.

Everyone should have the right to the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a long-held principle of our legal system. It is that the burden of proof rests with the accuser, and it essentially boils down to the idea that if someone is going to make extraordinary claims, then they need extraordinary proof. The right to the presumption of innocence is not something unique to common-law systems such as ours either. It is also present in the civil law system and is derived from the ancient Roman legal system, which also puts the burden of proof on the accuser. Similarly, in Islamic law the burden of proof is on the accuser, and their suspicion must also be compelling. It is also an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 11. If someone wants to allege that you have done the wrong thing, they need to put forward the proof. Usually it is on the balance of probabilities if it is a civil matter and beyond reasonable doubt if it is a criminal matter. And it is up to the state, the Crown and also the DPP to meet the burden of proof to that standard of proof.

What this bill proposes is different to this; it is completely different. It says that if a police officer, on reasonable suspicion, believes that you cannot explain the gap between your explicable wealth and inexplicable wealth and the gap is more than $200,000, then you need to justify to the court what your assets are and how you got them and demonstrate how you came to them in a lawful manner. If you cannot meet this burden of proof, you are subject to an unexplained wealth restraining order, without notice, to restrain you from using your assets, even before you know there is an issue. So this is a big change, and the onus is on the government to explain this. The government says this bill is to address the issue of those that try to maintain arms-length distance from the actual crime but that direct, coordinate and profit from it. I think most people would not want people such as them profiting from their crimes. But the problem is the reversal of the onus of proof and the lack of safeguards in the bill, and this is where we think the government needs to do some work.

As mentioned earlier, my colleague in the other place Mr O’Brien has consulted with stakeholders, and it is fair to say that they were not clamouring to support this bill. Both the Victorian Bar Council and the Law Institute of Victoria have advised us that they oppose the bill, and they oppose it because they do not believe that the government has sufficient safeguards in it to protect genuinely innocent people. Mr Adam Awty, who is chief executive of the Law Institute of Victoria, wrote to my colleague in the other place that:

The LIV opposes the Bill and does not support the introduction of the proposed new, third pathway into Victoria’s unexplained wealth confiscation regime.

The LIV holds this view for the following reasons:

• Firstly, the criteria for the restraint and forfeiture of wealth under the proposed new pathway would not require a nexus to criminal activity to be established, meaning that is insupportably broad;

• Secondly, and relatedly, the absence of a nexus to criminal activity means that the Bill may have unintended consequences for family members of subjects – who may have limited or no knowledge about the sources of the subject’s wealth owing to the subject’s control of the family’s finances;

• Thirdly, the LIV considers there to be no need for the new proposed pathway in light of the existing regime, which is already adequate to secure the targets of the Bill.

• Finally, the LIV submits that each of these factors mean that the extent to which the proposed new pathway would interfere with fundamental human and property rights, protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 … cannot be justified.

These are legitimate concerns that the Law Institute of Victoria has placed on record. The summary of what the Victorian Bar has said is:

In these circumstances, the Bar does not support the additional pathway that is proposed by the Bill …

which I understand has also been communicated to the Attorney-General.

That we have significant organisations telling us that they oppose the bill should give us pause for thought. We are not satisfied that someone who is absolutely innocent and has no involvement with criminal activity would be protected from being subject to these new laws, because there is no nexus to criminality. If a police officer believes on reasonable grounds somebody’s wealth exceeds by more than $200,000 their explicable wealth, that is the basis for an application to be made without notice to the individual concerned. That person will have to explain where those assets came from at a later time in court. There are a number of reasons why people have assets which may not be explicable to a police officer. People make money from a wide range of sources and side hustles; some of them do not want others to know about them, but they are legal.

In response to the charge that there are not safeguards in place, the government has basically said that police and DPP have their policies in terms of what they choose to investigate and prosecute respectively. We do not think that is remotely good enough. The rights of potentially innocent people should not rest with the policies of the DPP. The DPP does not have judicial power or legislative power as part of the executive, so that is not appropriate. We cannot forget that, for example, the DPP refused to allow Justice Geoffrey Nettle to bring charges in relation to the Lawyer X scandal; but we are meant to trust them now. We cannot forget also that we saw the DPP walk away from pursuing charges in relation to the over 800 deaths that we saw during the hotel quarantine scandal, so the DPP has not demonstrated itself to be the guardian of individual rights or to always act in the best interests of Victorians.

If one was to be cynical, given the state of finances in Victoria, one might simply view the bill as a desperate attempt at revenue raising – to grab some more cash for the state coffers. They are heading up to $190 billion of debt and heading towards $25 million per day in interest. Of course the government needs to get money from somewhere, which is why we always say Labor cannot manage money – they obviously cannot manage major projects – and it is Victorians that pay the price through higher taxes and cash grabs. As we see in the most recent budget, this state government has been desperate to get cash from any sources that it can. Even Court Services Victoria, which oversees Victoria’s stretched courts, has had a cut of $19.1 million, which is even greater in real terms, while Victoria has the worst court backlogs in the nation. We see this government continuing to take growth areas for a ride in my electorate and Mr Luu’s electorate as well. It spent $275 million on the Wyndham law courts development, but because of this cut there was no funding to operate the new courts until the new financial year. We will be moving a reasoned amendment and then moving a textual amendment in committee, but for the chamber’s convenience, the textual amendment we will move simply puts in place a statutory review into the laws. I am happy for it to be distributed.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Evan MULHOLLAND: A statutory review is something the government has supported for several other bills and would be most sensible for the chamber to support given the grave concerns others have. On the reasoned amendment, I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until the government commits to –

(1) consulting properly with stakeholders, including the Law Institute of Victoria and the Victorian Bar, to consider and address their concerns; and

(2) assuring Victorians that the bill contains sufficient safeguards to adequately protect the rights of innocent people with no involvement in criminal activity.’.

This is an eminently supportable suggestion given the comments from stakeholders that you have just heard. As I said, the government is in a disastrous financial position. It is looking for whatever way it can get money.

We are talking about unexplained wealth, so it would be remiss of me not to talk about the unexplained wealth that many CFMEU members have come into lately. They have come into a lot of unexplained wealth. I wonder whether the government could explain whether their laws might make a difference in stopping this unexplained wealth that many bikies have come across, that many corrupt CFMEU delegates have come across. In one extraordinary case in Melbourne a convicted criminal and bikie figure was appointed as a CFMEU health and safety official, earning an estimated $250,000 in one year, on Labor’s Big Build project upgrading the Hurstbridge line and used a car assigned to them to conduct worker safety checks to engage in bikie gang activities. You would not even need this bill, because there is a clear criminal link. The government would not need the bill; they could use existing laws to investigate this stuff. I suspect they will not. The official used the rail line upgrade vehicle – which, like his salary, was ultimately funded by the Allan government – to drive himself, bleeding from a gunshot wound, to the Footscray Hospital, after which the car was seized for forensic testing by Operation Spitfire.

Underworld figures who have served as some of Australia’s highest ranking bikie bosses, including the Mongols national vice-president and two men who held the top post at the Hells Angels as chapter presidents, along with several bikie gang –

John Berger: On a point of order, Acting President, I do not see what this has remotely got to do with the bill. I think he should get back to it rather than the frivolous sidetracking that is going on here.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I will uphold that. Mr Mulholland, please come back to the bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am happy to talk to the bill. I am focusing on a range of matters to do with unexplained wealth. I did discuss whether the bill would indeed cover the range of matters I am speaking to in which unexplained wealth has been come across, particularly where we have seen several cases of a self-styled CFMEU fixer offering a bribe to construction union officials to push corrupt building firms onto large taxpayer-funded projects and union officials at the CFMEU receiving kickbacks funded by the taxpayer. Sorry, this is unexplained wealth.

John Berger: On a point of order, Acting President, this is just another instance of going on and not actually speaking directly to the bill. He is again going off at a tangent.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I do ask Mr Mulholland to return to the topic of the bill rather than going off at a tangent.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The third pathway this government is proposing would not require any explicit criminal link. I was talking about kickbacks and cash payments and the use of services to redo someone’s own home, services that were being paid against taxpayer-funded projects. I understand that Mr Berger does not want to talk about CFMEU corruption going on that his ministers knew about, but I think it is related, and this government does have questions to answer about whether the bill covers it or not. I know the third pathway does not actually require any criminal link to be made for amounts over $200,000, but in several cases, which I have repeated, the value of the kickbacks and the renovations has been over $250,000. So I would invite the Director of Public Prosecutions to actually use the existing law, and perhaps the new law if it is passed, to go after those CFMEU officials that have received kickbacks and that have, with taxpayer-funded dollars and services that were meant to go to Big Build sites, received renovations on their own homes. That would be a good use of this bill. That would be an excellent use of this bill. I suspect that will not happen because the Labor Party have received millions of dollars in funding from the CFMEU and are soft on the CFMEU. But I hope that in the passing of this legislation there is actually some action on all the unexplained wealth of bikies, corrupt gangsters, criminal figures and corrupt CFMEU delegates that tarnish the good names of all the workers on the Big Build projects. I hope that with the passing of this bill those people that are rorting taxpayer dollars, that are gaining a lot of unexplained wealth from taxpayer dollars and services that are billed back to the taxpayer, are held to account.

Is it any wonder we have got $40 billion of blowouts on our major projects? Can the government explain that? It seems to be very unexplained. ‘Oh, it is inflation. It is the Ukraine war. It is COVID.’ No, it is these corrupt union delegates and bosses that are charging the taxpayer to redo their homes, that are taking kickbacks on the taxpayer dime.

John Berger: On a point of order, Acting President, he is not talking about the bill. He is clearly going off it again.

Evan MULHOLLAND: On the point of order, Acting President, I have made several references to the bill and how it could be used.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I have already asked you to return specifically to the bill. I ask you for the third time to keep your debate within the parameters of the bill.

Renee Heath: On the point of order, Acting President, the member is being directly relevant to the bill. This is a real-life example. He is being completely relevant.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Dr Heath, I have already ruled on the point of order.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Thank you, Acting President. In parts there might have been some flourishes, but I think everyone can acknowledge that I was talking about the application of the bill and things that it would relate to. I hope the application of the bill is fairly applied to all people in the Victorian community that come across unexplained wealth, especially given the third pathway the government is creating no longer requires a criminal connection. The application of this bill could be used for the DPP to investigate those with a criminal connection that have received unexplained wealth to a value of over $200,000 already – like those that are taking taxpayer-funded kickbacks – and the government could and does have actually the proper legislative avenues and powers to investigate these matters.

I have been previously told in the Parliament that these matters are federal and industrial relations matters – everyone else’s but their own – but the current laws as they are do allow the government to take some action. I think we would all agree that unexplained wealth of over $200,000 or $250,000, especially when obtained through illegal, coercive and corrupt means, particularly by CFMEU bosses and bikies, is a problem. It is a big problem, and it is something that we on this side of the chamber are pretty serious about getting on with and solving. This bill actually could be an avenue to spring the government into action in uncovering unexplained wealth and recovering unexplained wealth on behalf of hardworking Victorian taxpayers. Taxpayer money is clearly being fleeced through kickbacks. This bill could be a good way to start addressing these problems, but they will not do it because they are soft on the CFMEU.

In regard to our reasoned amendment, we are asking the government to demonstrate to Victorians that the bill contains sufficient safeguards to protect the rights of innocent people. We do not oppose this bill, but we will be placing on record genuine issues that we should all consider. We do not want to put innocent people through an unfair process and overturn long-held principles of our legal system.

I thank the chamber for its time, and I thank the chamber in particular for allowing me to go over real-world examples where corrupt union delegates have come across unexplained wealth and real-world examples of how the previous version of this legislation, which has passed, could be used in its application to go after corrupt union delegates and bikies if the government so sought. But of course they have not, because they have been soft on these kinds of things. Maybe it is because that particular union financially donates to the Labor Party. I thank the chamber for allowing me to talk about that. It is deeply important, given the millions of taxpayer dollars that have being fleeced by corrupt union officials and bikies, so I thank the chamber for its time and I urge the government and crossbenchers to support our reasoned amendment and also support our textual amendment for a statutory review.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:59): Today I rise to speak on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024. This is an important step towards tackling organised crime in this state by disrupting criminal activity by way of seizing unlawfully acquired wealth and targeting the most senior elements of organised crime networks. I would first like to thank my good friend the Minister for Crime Prevention, Anthony Carbines in the other place, for bringing this to Parliament. This is an important piece of legislation, and I know he approaches these matters with a great deal of care and consideration, so I thank him for his hard work. I would also like to thank my friend the Attorney-General, Minister Symes, for her hard work in this area. She knows how important it is to craft bills of this nature with care and consideration, and I think this bill strikes that balance well while remaining firm and unwavering against organised crime.

The Allan Labor government is determined to stamp out organised crime from Victoria. Victorians deserve to live in a safe environment free from the effects that organised crime networks seek to impose for personal benefit. Whether it be theft, assault, drug trafficking or the many other faces of organised crime, it has no place in our society. That is why since 2014 we have invested more than $4.5 billion through Victoria Police to make sure Victorians have a strong and effective police force that can uphold the law and chase down these criminals who rake in thousands of dollars at the expense of ordinary citizens. In that time we have spent $214 million on training up, hiring and rolling out frontline police officers and invested $1 billion in police station upgrades to make sure our state has the capacity, capabilities and skills needed to tackle these big issues – and these are big issues. Organised crime activity is estimated to cost Australia nationwide between $24.8 billion and $60.1 billion every year. The criminals at the top have been making large sums of money off the suffering of Victorians, who see the evidence of the effects of drug taking and violence, abuse and theft. Organised crime is a leech which feeds off the suffering of Victorians, and these criminals have learned new ways of dodging the law. We must better our efforts and challenge these groups.

Victoria is a community of largely law-abiding citizens. The laws of this state are in place to maintain a certain peace and order and equality with your fellow Victorians before the law. These laws exist to ensure that every Victorian is on a level playing field and is held to the same standard as everyone else. Equality before the law is crucial not just for our system of government but for our democracy and to our modern society. It is not an ideal but a basic expectation that everyone in this state is held to the same standard regardless of their background. These rules exist to protect Victorians and to protect our broad and diverse community from harm from those who think they are above the law. It stands to reason that Victorians who laugh in the face of our laws and treat their fellow Victorians with contempt be adequately punished. I am talking about criminals involved in organised crime, who benefit enormously from their shameful criminal activity. These are criminals who, unlike most Victorians, do not roll up their sleeves and get an honest day’s work done. Instead these criminals try to cut corners, sidestep the law and try and make quick and easy money illegitimately and often with great harm inflicted on innocent people.

Most Victorians work each day for the wellbeing of others. Whether they are in small business, they are small business owners or they work in the emergency or public services or even if they are just starting out with their first job, they are at heart earning a living by working for the benefit, wellbeing and service of others. This is not the case with organised crime and its proponents. These are individuals who pose an active threat to the wellbeing and safety of Victorians, encouraging other dangerous forms of crime such as assault, theft or drug trafficking. By estimate drug trafficking and other illegal activities pertaining to drugs is linked to about $16.5 billion each year. That stands alongside $94 million for organised fraud efforts and a further $4.9 billion in illicit goods such as unregulated black market tobacco and vapes, and an outstanding $2.3 billion is associated with the enablers of organised crime. This is no small task. This is a beast spread across all of Australia, and we need to do our part in stamping it out in Victoria.

Billions are made every year off the exploitation and suffering of and violence against innocents by these organised crime networks. To this effect it is important that our laws and police force are equipped to investigate and subsequently sentence those who break that expectation and earn lucrative sums off the suffering of others. An effective way to address the acquisition of wealth through illegitimate means is to investigate unexplained wealth, and that is that is what this legislation will do. The provisions of the bill will empower the relevant department, that being the Department of Justice and Community Safety, to apply for an audit into unexplained wealth if the department has reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual under the probe holds wealth that exceeds lawfully acquired wealth by $200,000 or more. In other words, the bill will remove the requirement for police and prosecutors to demonstrate criminal means of wealth procurement in their investigations and instead will require criminals to prove that their wealth was in fact legally acquired through a conducted financial assessment. What this means is that the authorities will no longer have to comb through and search for dodgy transactions to get a lead on suspicious or unlawful acquisition of wealth.

The most senior members of organised crime networks tend to remain at arm’s-length distance from the actual offending on the ground. This has until now been the work of senior bosses in organised crime, to skirt law enforcement with no direct link drawn between their vast accumulations of illegitimate wealth and their criminal conduct. This amendment means our authorities can instead issue an order for these criminals to explain their suspicious sums of money. Rather than making the state search for the direct link from the outset, these criminals will now have to show proof of legitimate acquisition of earnings for that wealth the authorities deem suspicious.

This bill also expands the scope of wealth to all owned, controlled, expended, consumed and disposed of – the latter including through gift, sale or other means – and through any service, advantage or benefit provided or requested. This is crucial to tracking down and stamping out organised crime, which passes around assets of wealth among its circles by untraceable means from the perspective of authorities. With these amendments the agencies are empowered to not just request proof of legitimacy but also follow around wealth and assets that may have been given as gifts or private sales.

Given that senior organisers in criminal networks, as I mentioned earlier, tend to keep themselves away from the actual offending acts, it is crucial that we understand how these individuals hide their wealth and trade it between themselves. This amendment will do just that, allowing the relevant agencies to pursue unexplained wealth through these transactions and trades as gifts or sales. This also gives our police and prosecutors strength and capability to target senior criminal figures who divert their finances away from their direct possession in order to evade accountability. Furthermore, the value at the time of acquisition will be accounted for to ensure that all forms of currency that organised crime often deals with will be captured in these amendments. This is important to disrupt the activities of organised crime and to ensure that wealth is acquired and managed in a legal manner.

As I mentioned earlier, around $2.3 billion by some estimates is possibly linked to the enablers of organised crime across Australia. To tackle something of that size, even within Victoria, requires our police force and relevant agencies to be able to evaluate the scale of the criminal activity with the considerations of changing times, prices and volumes. This means that we can better tune the scope of our investigations, coordinate resources properly and make sure that we are tracking every cent of illegal activity in these networks.

On top of all of this, the Allan Labor government is continuing our long work in ensuring that no loopholes can be exploited to avoid accountability for criminal activity. These amendments are in line with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s knowledge of the increasing complexity of the activities of organised crime. We are not talking about small monetary values in this bill’s proposal. We are referring to the large figures of discrepancy between known wealth and the suspected illegal acquisition of $200,000 or more. When dealing with someone of that scale, there ought to be a legitimate explanation of where that wealth came from for every Victorian, except of course when regarding organised crime and its proponents. We are dealing with potentially billions of dollars in circulation – sums higher than $200,000. Most Victorians would easily be able to produce proof of legitimate acquisition; criminals, however, would not be able to do that. Closing a loophole like this means we can easily catch criminals out who cannot provide the same legitimate proof, explanation of their wealth, that the ordinary Victorian can. That is what is at the heart of this piece of legislation.

I would also like to make an important point about accountability. I would like to talk about what this legislation means for ordinary law-abiding Victorians and what accountability systems are in place. In order to enter into an evaluation process to root out illegitimately accrued wealth, an order needs to be issued that there is a reasonable suspicion around someone’s unexplained wealth, authorising the officers to take action. These orders are to be issued fairly and reasonably when there is a strong suspicion on the part of the authorities that the wealth of an individual – a potential criminal – has been a financial benefactor of illegal activity and would not be able to adequately explain their wealth. This bill, in order to protect ordinary Victorians, provides the courts with the power to refuse to make or reduce the value of an unexplained wealth order if it considers it unjust action. This will help ensure accountability to these new powers and that the appropriate implementation of these expanded scope orders is consistent with the community’s expectations.

That ensures that whatever we do to pursue organised crime and unexplained wealth is used for that reason specifically and not used unchecked against the general law-abiding populace. These powers are to be used against organised crime to compel them to explain themselves, and these guardrails are there to make sure that ordinary Victorians are not pulled up unreasonably. Furthermore, this reversal of the onus to explain the unknown source of wealth is consistent with other jurisdictions, who have proven to be successful in tracking down wrongfully acquired wealth. This includes Western Australia, but the alterations in this bill are similar to the laws in New South Wales. New South Wales legislation also provides that police can seize or freeze assets. This bill outlines how a police seizure or freezing of assets will function under the new burden of proof, under which conditions and through which judicial and police avenues it will be done.

This bill also addresses the fact that evidence for unexplained wealth may often be found in an individual’s consumption or expenditure. They might not necessarily hide their wealth away in a fleet of luxury cars or expensive planes. Sometimes we need to have a closer inspection of their spending habits. That requires a more microscopic approach to tackling these groups that existing legislation cannot adequately rise up to. The legislation has struck a delicate but good balance between empowering our authorities to look more closely at organised criminal behaviour around exchanging wealth and how it is hidden and protecting everyday Victorians from unwarranted intrusion.

These measures are an important way to ensure two outcomes. The first is to ensure that we uphold the rule of law, stamping out criminal behaviour and the attempt by organised crime to hide away their wealth and dodge responsibility for their actions. As I said earlier, it is a fundamental principle of our democracy that everyone is held to the same standard, equal before the law, and that nobody can circumvent that through sleazy or dodgy transactions. The Allan Labor government believes strongly in upholding the rule of law and supporting our police officers and courts to uphold the rule of law. The second outcome is to balance these new powers with protections for ordinary Victorians, making sure that we have a strong and capable police force that can tackle these big issues without storming people’s privacy and personal rights. As organised crime seeks to further dodge and evade the law, bettering their tactics and skirting punishment, it is only natural that we modernise our efforts. We know how they are changing, and it is only fit that we rise to that by modernising the tools at our disposal. Providing the police and appropriate agencies with the power to search out these unexplained abundances of wealth and putting the onus on the criminals to explain themselves not only brings us into line with Western Australia but also brings us into line with New South Wales and improves the police’s effectiveness in stamping out crime. This is all, of course, being done while ensuring ordinary Victorians who follow and obey the law are respected and protected from unwarranted or unjustified intrusions into their privacy.

Our legal system is firm but fair. I have no doubt that the ministers involved struck the balance well in protecting the rights and freedoms of Victorians while taking a firm stance against organised crime, and it will rein in the unexplained accumulation of wealth. This is consistent with the government’s agenda on addressing crime prevention, including youth diversion programs across the state as part of the $13.6 million investment into youth crime prevention in the 2023 budget, installing new CCTV cameras in places such as Lygon Street, confirming consent laws to prevent sexual violence and expanding powers of police to investigate cybercrime. I commend the bill to the house.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:13): I rise to speak on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024. I have to say, while there have been some lovely speeches, I cannot help but point out the staggering hypocrisy from the other side today. You are literally in the middle of overwhelming corruption, crime, bullying, intimidation – all on the taxpayer dollar – yet you are happy to pick out the plank in everyone else’s eyes rather than looking at the log in your own. I have to say I find this government ironic. Thanks to recent media reporting we now understand how Labor have racked up their unexplained debt in this state. I think it is absolutely wonderful that this government is finally looking to tackle organised crime, but I would like to say as well perhaps it should start in its own backyard, because over the last two weeks we have heard a classic example of this with John Setka. I know every time my colleague mentioned him there was a point of order called because you do not like to hear about it. The fact is that under this government crime has absolutely skyrocketed. Perhaps that is because you say what sounds right about tackling crime and about doing the right thing in your speeches, but we have seen how rotten to the core things have gotten. The truth is that it is hard to stand up and stamp out crime and corruption when your political partners are neck-deep in it.

Crime is out of control in this state. We are seeing a young generation devastatingly caught up in crime. We have seen the most extraordinary rates of youth offending, and tragically we have seen young people breaking bail over and over again. Some might say, ‘What has that got to do with unexplained wealth?’ Well, it is very clear, really: the sooner young people get involved in crime, the harder it is for them to break out of it, and they end up in things like this. This is tragic on so many levels. It is a picture of a generation that is in distress and very disconnected, and it is being made worse by Victoria’s very weak legal system. Victoria’s per capita rate of youth robbery is far higher than New South Wales’s. Its youth weapon offences are almost triple the levels of New South Wales. Homicide, theft, abduction and harassment rates are higher here than in New South Wales.

I spoke before about the breaching of bail. In March in this place devastatingly we saw the loosening of bail laws in this state. I will tell you what, the way to address crime is not to reduce the age of criminal responsibility so they cannot be responsible; that will not make the problem go away. It is not to make a criminal act all of a sudden legal; that will not make the problem go away. There is a proper way that we need to address things, and I believe that it comes with integrity, starting in this place. I just hope that those opposite can face up to that so we can actually make real change that is going to affect the next generation. Breaching of bail has been absolutely extraordinary over the last year: 487 offenders between 12 and 14 years old breached bail 572 times, and offenders aged between 15 and 17 breached bail 2207 times. Victoria’s worst youth criminals were responsible for 300 aggravated burglaries. This is absolutely out of control. Forty per cent of Victorian prisoners will return to prison within two years. We are in a state of crisis. More than 70 per cent of young offenders return to sentence supervision within 12 months of leaving a youth justice facility. It is higher in this state than it is anywhere else in the nation. We have to remember that behind every one of these statistics is a person.

I will bring it back, for a second, to the corruption that we have seen that this government has turned a blind eye to and, I believe, has been complicit in in a lot of ways. I find it absolutely extraordinary that you can stand here and give sanctimonious lectures after we have seen the most rotten things come out in the media over the last fortnight or little while. But anyway, I will return to the bill. I will just say this: I think that your government has lost whatever moral high ground you thought you had, and you have completely smashed your reputation because of the actions that have been revealed and the multimillion-dollar fraud that has taken place on the taxpayer dime. It is an absolute disgrace.

There are a couple of concerns that I want to talk about, similar to Mr Mulholland. There are some legal principles that have really underpinned, in a sense, Western democracy and our legal system, and the first one is the presumption of innocence. This is something that has been absolutely foundational. It has allowed people to live a free life where they know that within the bounds of the law you stay free and you are innocent until proven guilty. But this absolutely flips that onus of proof and makes a presumption of guilt, and it is actually the person who is accused that has to then turn that around and prove their innocence. It might seem like something little or something technical, but this is actually a huge leap when it comes to stepping away from that foundation of the law that has kept us safe.

Organised crime is an absolutely huge issue. In fact the Australian Institute of Criminology in 2020–‍21 estimated that the cost of serious and organised crime was between – and there is a huge range here; it is sort of like Labor’s budget predictions, but anyway – $24 billion and $60 billion: a huge amount of money that is caught up in organised crime. However, the scope of this operation allows that unexplained wealth restraining orders can be applied without notice and property restrained if there is a reasonable suspicion that a person’s wealth exceeds their lawful acquisitions by $200,000 or more. I hope that there will be a timeframe applied to this, just purely because of the legal principle there. The second is that there can be freezing orders. Investigative officers can apply freezing orders on accounts suspected of holding unlawfully acquired wealth. There are different legal exclusions; this bill also provides a mechanism for individuals to apply for exclusions from restraining orders. But we should not be there in the first place.

I really believe that we must have sufficient safeguards to adequately protect the rights of innocent Victorians that have had no involvement in criminal activity. With this, like many other things, we have seen a government that will not turn up to inquiries and a government that will not face up to the corruption that they have been complicit in, yet we are seeing that they are not even allowing Victorians, the people that they were put there to serve, to have the presumption of innocence. I think that is absolutely unbelievable. The threshold of order requiring only reasonable suspicion is highly subjective, especially when there is no evidence of serious criminal activity. This is a huge change from the former legal requirement of probable cause. It is a huge change. ‘Reasonable suspicion’ – what does that even mean? Does it mean that you have got a hunch? If that is the fact, imagine how this law could be weaponised and how abusive of the everyday citizen this could be.

Under these laws the government can confiscate assets and share financial information, even if an individual has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing. I spoke briefly about the burden of proof moving further away from the well-established and foundational legal doctrine of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is absolutely extraordinary. I think we have got a long way to go here. Unfortunately, under this government crime has gone through the roof, and their response to that has been to lower the threshold of what crime is. People are feeling more unsafe. In fact a community consultation survey in Bass said people’s number one concern was safety in the community because there were not enough police officers. Yet this government has either shut down or reduced the opening hours of over 50 police stations. It is a very strange reaction. The other thing is that obviously they have been caught in bed with the CFMEU, and I just find it unbelievable. But surely reversing the onus of proof and getting rid of the presumption of innocence would have to be seen as a major overcorrection.

In closing, I just want to say that I find this government’s hypocrisy extraordinary. I was at a rally on the weekend hearing from women who have been subject to terrible sexual violence and are just waiting on this government to do something, and we have not seen anything. We have seen the Premier march in a rally protesting to the government for change, yet she is the government, and there has been no work done. In closing, I am just going to say we will be supporting this bill. We do need to tackle crime, but I really believe that it has to start in Labor’s own house first.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:25): I am proud to speak today on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024. No-one wants to see someone caught for doing something wrong but experiencing no consequences. There are a number of examples where some experience the consequence of the law very differently, often as a result of a big differential in resources to defend themselves. Some of those at the top end of town have the resources to quite legally minimise their tax burden – in some cases corporations do not pay tax at all – while most of us PAYE citizens pay full tax obligations without question. The consequence of white-collar crime, as another example, is less severe for those who have enough money to buy the best lawyers and defend themselves. In some jurisdictions being rich and famous can result in lesser convictions. In other words, some people are simply too famous and rich to be incarcerated.

The same applies to the top end of the crime world. We see well-heeled individuals involved in organised crime who sometimes do the time but subsequently live off the proceeds of their crime with no consequences whatsoever. Our community expects all of us to be treated equally under the law, and to that end this bill is part of the Allan Labor government’s commitment to holding those involved in organised crime to account.

This bill amends the Confiscation Act 1997. Organised crime is insidious by nature, with the sole purpose of deceiving and creating a shield to hide its activities and to protect those higher-up crime figures from being seen as directly involved in illegal activities. All too often individuals involved in the middle and lower end of the organised crime system are identified and prosecuted. This provides cover or a screen for those at the top. The most lucrative organised crime activities can involve drugs, human trafficking, the illegal wildlife trade – hard to imagine, I know – fake medications, the smuggling of immigrants, weapons, natural resources trafficking and cybercrime.

The Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024 seeks to disrupt serious organised crime groups by preventing the use and enjoyment of wealth that has not been lawfully acquired. The bill will amend the Confiscation Act 1997 to strengthen Victoria’s existing unexplained wealth laws by introducing, as my predecessors have said, a third unexplained wealth pathway that better targets unlawfully acquired wealth. The bill does this by introducing a new unexplained wealth order which can be sought in relation to individuals reasonably suspected of possessing wealth exceeding their lawfully acquired wealth by at least $200,000. Unlike existing pathways, this new unexplained wealth order does not require a connection to crime. This simplifies the process and will better enable law enforcement to target individuals, primarily senior figures in criminal organisations who seek to distance themselves from offending.

The bill also introduces a new related unexplained wealth restraining order. This is a court order that sets out that no property, or interest in property, to which the order applies is to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with by any person except in the manner and circumstances, if any, specified in that order. The effective and unexplained wealth restraining order is to preserve a person’s property or interest in property while unexplained wealth order proceedings take place. When Victoria’s unexplained wealth scheme was introduced back in 2014 it allowed for the restraint and forfeiture of a person’s property without the need for a conviction. Two processes could be followed within the scheme to allow for the forfeiture of a person’s property. The first was based on the reasonable suspicion that a person that held an interest in a property of over $50,000 was engaged in serious criminal activity, and the second process was based around the reasonable suspicion that property of any value that was not lawfully acquired could be forfeited or restrained. This bill amends the Confiscation Act 1997 to allow for a third process. The third pathway results in an unexplained wealth order being made based on a reasonable suspicion that a person’s wealth exceeds their lawfully acquired wealth by at least $200,000.

The unexplained wealth order creates a civil debt in favour of the state. The debt is up to the equivalent value of the wealth that a court is satisfied is not lawfully acquired wealth. The amendments in this bill are designed to overcome the limitations currently found within the person or property pathways. This bill goes to the top echelons of crime; it will capture those who shield themselves from their criminal activities – those who utilise legitimate businesses, associates and junior members of a crime organisation to assume all the risk whilst they continue to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle. This is about taking down the godfathers, the capos, the lieutenants of crime, and this is another step in the Allan Labor government’s ongoing charge in cracking down on organised crime and career criminals. This bill will also broaden the definition of ‘wealth’ to capture all interest in property owned by a person or under the effective control of a person. Importantly, under the broadened definition of wealth, the bill will also capture the wealth that has been expended, consumed or disposed of by the person, whether by gift, sale or otherwise.

We know even with robust judicial processes criminal organisations continue to expand and grow their wealth. An example of this is the Alameddine family in New South Wales. In 2022 they were brought down by New South Wales police after running a multimillion-dollar crime syndicate. $250,000 in cash, vehicles, and jewellery was forfeited. At the time, the crime syndicate was running a dial-a-dealer operation that was netting $250,000 per day. These are the types of crime organisations and leaders that these amendments are targeted towards.

This third option that this amendment brings in intends to disrupt the criminal activities of senior organised crime figures. These senior figures have the ability to distance themselves from crime perpetrated by the crime groups they represent. By doing this they are able to continually accrue significant wealth and financial benefits whilst not being directly implicated in criminal activities. This new process will ensure that unlawfully acquired wealth cannot be utilised for further criminal activities or used for the enjoyment of these crime figures or their associates. The wealth of organised crime figures and their associates has been under the spotlight for a number of years. This new pathway will remove the requirement for a nexus or connection to serious criminal activity. This is a particularly critical reform because it will empower Victoria Police to effectively target high-level organised crime figures who intentionally and consistently distance themselves from the criminal offending while still reaping financial benefits. This means that the substantial wealth of these high-level figures can now be scrutinised and seized where it is found to be from illegal activities. From a community perspective this is something that we all expect from our judicial system and something that holds crime families to even greater account.

This bill is a crucial step in disrupting the powerbase of organised and serious crime organisations. The bill breaks down the wall that senior crime figures have forged, removing their ability to distance themselves from organised crime activities and profit from them. It ensures that all entities involved in organised crime can and will be scrutinised through these unexplained wealth orders and their wealth forfeited if found to be illegally gained. This is a bill that will ensure the community can remain confident in the government’s and law enforcement’s ability to hold all levels of organised crime syndicates to account, and with this additional pathway it ensures that all levels of organised crime are accountable no matter how far they try to place themselves from the physical act of the crime. I commend the bill to the house.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:36): I rise to make a brief contribution this afternoon on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024. This bill before us today is, I would say, the third pathway in a set based on the original intent and content of amendments to the Confiscation Act 1997 that came through the Liberal–Nationals coalition in 2014, which were looking to give back to the state ill-gotten gains obtained by people through criminal activity. We have heard a fairly extensive debate on this, so I will not drill down into the weeds like my very good colleague Mr Mulholland, who was the lead speaker, and indeed Dr Heath, who spoke eloquently about the CFMEU and the ill-gotten gains from corruption, from deceit and from big bosses creaming the system, facilitated, aided and abetted by the state government, the Allan Labor government. I want to drill down into some context of the Eastern Victoria Region, but I will provide that shortly.

In the 2014 bill the Director of Public Prosecutions certainly was enabled. If there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and unlawful appropriation or acquiring of property, the bill provided two different pathways: one was personal and one was a property pathway. The personal was that that person had gained property of over $50,000 in value from a suspected criminal activity, and the second one was about any property of any value that was not lawfully acquired. Victoria Police was required to provide an affidavit – so a legal document – stating their grounds for suspecting this unexplained wealth to the DPP, and the DPP would then issue an unexplained wealth restraining order to reclaim the wealth that was obtained through ill-gotten gains. If there was no clear evidence that there was ownership of that property by the said offenders, and if that could not be established within six months, then that property could be returned to the state.

This next part of that tranche is at a separate time, 10 years later, and in a separate government. Indeed that first tranche was supported by the then opposition, the Labor Party, back in 2014. This next proposed pathway relates to how the DPP can apply to the court for an unexplained wealth order if there are reasonable grounds, and we will investigate that, to suspect that a person’s wealth exceeds their lawfully acquired wealth by at least $200,000 – but they do not have to be suspected of any criminal activity. In amending the act and adding that third pathway, the government is looking to strengthen and orchestrate those laws to better target those who are involved with organised crime. As we read in the papers and see on our televisions, and if we look at the crime stats – particularly for the Eastern Victoria Region, to my interest – we can see that unfortunately the crime stats are going up, offending is going up and organised crime is a well-oiled machine under the Allan Labor government.

The Crown is not obliged to prove that there is a direct nexus between this unexplained wealth and criminal activity. We have heard Mr Mulholland go into detail about the concerns of the Victorian Bar and also the Law Institute of Victoria. Part of that concern of the law institute is that they feel that this bill’s criteria are insupportably broad and that there could be unintended consequences for family members of subjects, who may have limited or no knowledge about the source of the subject’s wealth owing to the subject’s control of the family finances. There could be unintended consequences and indeed victims in this scenario.

Henceforth and otherwise, my colleague Mr Michael O’Brien, our Shadow Attorney-General, has put up some very reasonable amendments, one being a reasoned amendment, to allay and address the concerns of the Victorian Bar. Now, they are quite considered people. I think they may be a bit left of centre from time to time, but they are astute in their assessments. If this reasoned amendment passes, the government can actually do their due diligence, not just wander through but actually investigate with the Victorian Bar and the law institute, have those conversations and allay those concerns about this bill. It is a reasonable and appropriate measure.

Overall, we do not want to see this bill fail, but we do want those safeguards and conditions addressed, and also the Liberals and Nationals would like to see a review. Too often we have this government pass legislation and then off it goes into the ether without a fulsome, comprehensive assessment of the facts: is it picking up or collecting those criminals that it should be, is there good governance around it and how is it doing? And indeed, our textual amendment coming up in the committee of the whole will look to have a three-year review, so I ask the house to support that as well.

What we do know is that Victoria Police are often overstretched. I have spoken with police in my Eastern Victoria electorate, and the thin blue line is getting thinner and thinner every day. I mean no disrespect to our very hardworking VicPol in our regions and across the state, but I think many Victorians would be quite concerned about how thin that line is. I know I speak to members of my community in Lang Lang who are frustrated by increasing crime in their region and down the street – just regular, recalcitrant, inappropriate social behaviour as well as petty crime et cetera – and they just cannot seem to get police when they need them into their communities.

I also certainly acknowledge the fact that Victoria Police really want to look at addressing serious crime – and we do have a major crime problem in this state. Looking at those Mr Bigs and those quite often drug-related crimes, they can be the third person back on the left and really have that shield and invisible relation to those crimes because they have their minions working under them. One of the concerns I have about this government’s decision – and I know they are debating it in the lower house at the moment – to raise the age of criminality is that this will only embolden those Mr Bigs, those drug barons, to get these minions to work for them further and further, to reach into youth crime and to manipulate and drive that youth crime, knowing that there is impunity if that legislation goes through. This does not serve those young people, and it does not serve the victims of crime, of which there are many and varied in my electorate.

I will look to some actual statistics coming up, but I also want to put on record my heartfelt thanks to the family of Ashley Gordon, who have had the absolute tragedy of the death of their beloved brother, son, uncle et cetera. His family come from the Latrobe Valley. The death was related to a home invasion, and again those were youths in that situation. It is not directly related, but those youths could have been working for those Mr Bigs to invade and to access valuable items and steal them as part of a bigger syndicate, and that could well have involved these unrelated criminal activities and ill-gotten gains and misappropriated gains, for sure.

In relation to my Eastern Victoria Region, there are some alarming statistics; it is going the wrong way. These are very sobering statistics from the Crime Statistics Agency. From March 2015 to March 2024, nine years under Labor, we can see that in relation to obtaining benefit through deception, and this could very much be captured by this bill – ill-gotten gains, acquiring assets, acquiring financial benefit and obtaining benefit through deception – through Cardinia, Bass, Baw Baw, South Gippsland, Latrobe Valley, Wellington, East Gippsland and Mornington, if we add them all together, there has been a 74 per cent increase in these crimes under the Labor government. Indeed it is 74 per cent across that region, but if we look at it statewide, that percentage is 33 per cent. So we are well over double those statistics, and it might point to a few things: certainly that crime is, I hate to say, blossoming in the country and also that there is desperation, that there is opportunity and that, as I said, VicPol is stretched far beyond this government’s fair and reasonable protection in terms of resource management. In relation to theft, we can also see that there have been some significant increases in Cardinia – double the state average. In Baw Baw it is double the state average as well. So there is theft, and that can also be captured by this bill.

The other point that gives me no joy whatsoever is in terms of drug trafficking. We see that Wellington shire has had an increase of 73 per cent under this Andrews-cum-Allan Labor government – not a statistic that we rejoice in in the Wellington shire – and East Gippsland shire has had a 24 per cent increase over the nine years under Labor. We also see that we have fake tradies, scammers, con men – or women, as the case may be. We see fraud ever on the increase, and we have stock theft. There are thousands and thousands of dollars lost in stock theft, and that can be anything off the farm. Also certainly there is drug trafficking as well.

In conclusion, as I said, I ask the house to consider our amendments most sincerely. I think they are reasonable and appropriate. We do want to see this bill pass, but we also want those concerns about unintended consequences addressed. When we look at unexplained wealth, we can see that there have also been well and truly unexplained budget blowouts under this government. We see the Premier has been making the decisions on these key projects in central Melbourne – these digging projects, these major projects. We can see that she has been the Minister for Major Projects. She signed off on the Suburban Rail Loop, the West Gate Tunnel and the North East Link. They are unexplained and they are a burden to our communities, and they will be a burden to Victorians for decades to come when you have got $40 billion in blowouts. If this bill will help to reclaim some of that, well and good. We also wonder very strongly about how much of that is lining the CFMEU bosses’ pockets through their misappropriation of taxpayer funds. The kickbacks are enormous. As I said, please consider the Liberals and Nationals amendments to this bill.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:50): I also rise to speak on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024. I will say from the outset that the Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill. Let us start with what the bill does. If you look at what it claims to do under ‘Objects’, clause 5(2) inserts new paragraph (e), which suggests that one of the key aims is ‘to disrupt criminal activity by preventing the use of wealth that is not lawfully acquired in further criminal activity’. However, the powers in this bill provide that if Victoria Police suspects that someone has unexplained wealth over a certain prescribed amount, they can apply to the Magistrates’ Court to have those assets frozen, and if that wealth cannot be explained in a reasonable manner, those assets can be seized by the state. You will notice that nowhere in this process is it required to prove the criminal sources of that unexplained wealth. What is really happening here is we are creating a system for the state to seize assets which they believe are connected to criminal activity but which the police are unable to prove come from criminal activity. It is a shortcut to undermine organised crime.

As I have spoken about much recently, I am very keen to undermine organised crime, but I think that what this is doing is bypassing and ignoring the root causes of organised crime. It is looking at the consequences and not even investigating the sources of this unexplained money. It is simply applying a mechanism through which the state can seize assets of people that Victoria Police thinks might be criminals.

We only need to look at other jurisdictions to see how badly this can go wrong. The United States has absolutely terrible systems. There are countless stories about cash and assets being seized by local police with no evidence of criminal activity whatsoever. Also – I think the Greens might be interested in this – in New South Wales they have similar sorts of laws and a couple of years ago they were used to seize the car of a climate activist, who happened to be living in that car at the time. I do not believe any people would be living in cars worth over $200,000, but nevertheless it is a good example of the types of unintended consequences that can arise from this type of legislation. This confiscation by the state without evidence of criminal activity undermines everything that we think about the criminal justice system and natural justice.

What I would prefer the government to focus on, and indeed what I would prefer the opposition and the general public to focus on, rather than playing whack-a-mole, as we are doing at the moment with this sort of random enforcement and crazy new powers, is look at the root causes of these organised crime activities. Let us have a look at some of them. Recently we have seen potential corruption in particular unions. One of the vectors for that corruption was through specialist labour hire agencies. You may wonder why anyone would need specialist labour hire agencies. It is because of government policy – government procurement policies dictate that they need certain numbers of people in terms of either race or gender in order to get government contracts, and therefore they have created a vector for organised crime to get involved. Clearly those procurement policies, however well intentioned they may be, have caused a method for organised crime to get involved and corrupt these government procurement contracts. Also, planning rules – we have seen at the local government level problems with planning. What is the incentive there? Well, if you have lines on a map that dictate how land can be used by local government or state government and they change what you can use that land for, of course it increases the value of the land. That creates, again, an incentive for corruption, for organised crime to get involved, and that is another problem that is caused by government policy itself.

Another thing that creates a vector for organised crime – we have been talking about it a lot; in fact I talked about it a lot yesterday in the media – is government policy on tobacco and vaping. The government, both state and federal, have outlawed vaping despite it being a very popular consumer product for people wishing to give up cigarettes. Of course the government’s fantasy that everyone will go to a doctor and get a prescription and all this sort of stuff has turned out to be not the case. The market is being supplied by organised crime yet again, and of course all that money needs to be laundered. This could easily be solved by the government allowing vaping for adults, legalising it for adults, as is done in far more sensible countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom – which do not have this problem, by the way.

Tobacco policy – again, I do not blame the state government for this, although they could be a bit louder in complaining about it to the federal government, as I have been trying to be loud in complaining about it. The tobacco excise tax is at absolutely ridiculous levels. That differential between the wholesale price and the retail price, which includes the ridiculous excise tax levels that are eye-watering and unaffordable for consumers and which means that tobacco – legal tobacco, at least – is effectively prohibited, has again created an incentive by the government for organised crime to get involved. And boy have they got involved. They have taken over. As I said yesterday to the media, the government does not regulate tobacco and vaping in this state, organised crime does, and it is a direct result of government policy. They have caused this organised crime.

Cannabis – again, we have spoken many times about this. Cannabis in Victoria I think is about a billion-dollar market – again, a billion dollars that is being washed through Lord knows how many money-laundering schemes. Again, it could be completely eliminated through legalisation. If the government changed the legal status of cannabis and made it a legally regulated product for adults, then this market would disappear from organised crime. A billion dollars would be ripped out of organised crime activity; it would not end up as unexplained wealth. It would never be a criminal activity to begin with; they would be paying taxes on it and employing people. For people that complain and say that if we legalise cannabis, there will be all of these people that would start smoking cannabis, let me tell you, I do not think that there is a single person in this state that wants to obtain cannabis that cannot get it. In fact we have one of the highest consumption rates in the world. It is absolutely crazy.

Another one, which is a more recent one and yet a new market for the expansion of organised crime in this state – possibly our fastest growing industry – is firewood. I believe Ms Bath spoke about this. Because of regulations on collecting firewood and this sort of thing, they have created another market for organised crime to get involved in, and again organised crime has been driven by government policy directly.

Historically, when we have had small-scale organised crime, they used to joke about it being laundered through fruit and veggie shops and this sort of thing. Let me tell you, the billions and billions and billions of dollars that is being generated by cannabis, vaping, tobacco and even firewood now is not going through fruit and veggie shops. I think that anyone that thinks that this industrial-scale money laundering that must be happening is not corrupting other areas of the economy and other parts of the state – in fact it is hard to think of many industry sectors that would be large enough to absorb this level of money laundering outside of construction. I think that we are going to uncover a lot of connections between what we have been seeing with corruption in the construction sector and other criminal industries, such as black market tobacco, vaping, cannabis and drugs et cetera.

Another thing – which I note the government has taken action on, and I am very happy about that – is the heroin market. It was estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Office that this market is worth about $250 million. I note that the government has committed to the expansion of its pharmacotherapy system. One may wonder why a Libertarian is pushing for a pharmacotherapy system to be expanded. That is because every person that gets off heroin and onto pharmacotherapy is one more person out of the hands of organised crime and getting help from their doctors, families, communities and the health system rather than dealing with organised criminals, courts, police and prisons. I commend the government on this action. I would urge them, though, to accelerate what they are doing here, because as was brought up earlier today, we are in a dire situation with synthetic, very powerful opiates.

We have seen the disastrous outcomes that have happened in the United States and other countries through drugs like fentanyl and nitazenes. It is my absolute nightmare that they become widespread in Victoria. We need to act urgently on this before organised crime – which regulates this market – decides to start distributing these products. Interception will not work. You will not be able to stop it. The only thing stopping it at the moment is that organised crime does not want it. They do not want it because they have got a nice little calm market. But of course sooner or later someone will manage to bring it in, it will be a new product and it will kill people. Again, this is due to government policy.

I will say it again: the idea of the government confiscating assets from people with no proof of the criminal generation of those assets is wrong. The Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (17:02): I rise to speak on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024. The bill is a culmination of extensive work to deliver on the government’s commitment in the Community Safety Statement 2018–19 to review Victoria’s asset confiscation and unexplained wealth laws. Although our existing confiscation scheme is relatively robust, there are gaps in the scheme that sophisticated senior organised crime members have continued to take advantage of to the detriment of Victorians, particularly those organised crime group members who distance themselves from direct offending but continue to play a pivotal role in the movement of funds, property and favours in criminal organisations. As a result, the new unexplained wealth pathway broadens the existing pathways in two substantive ways.

The bill amends the Confiscation Act 1997 to strengthen and improve Victoria’s existing unexplained wealth laws by introducing a new unexplained wealth order that better targets unlawfully acquired wealth. The Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024 is designed to disrupt the financial backbone of organised crime groups. Money – often the primary incentive for engaging in serious criminal conduct – sustains and motivates these nefarious activities. By severing the flow of unlawfully acquired wealth, we can significantly undermine the infrastructure of organised crime, rendering it less effective and more susceptible to legal intervention. One of the core objectives of this bill is to ensure the economic allure of crime is substantially diminished. By confiscating unlawfully obtained wealth, we send a clear and unequivocal message to those engaged in or contemplating serious criminal activities: Victoria will not be a safe haven for ill-gotten gains. It is not merely a matter of stripping away assets, it is about stripping away the power and influence that such wealth confers upon these entities.

Moreover, the bill aims to protect our community by preventing these funds from being reinvested into further legal activities. This initiative shows our commitment to justice and equity. By targeting unexplained wealth, we uphold the principle that no-one should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of society. It reinforces the belief that the rule of law applies equally to all, regardless of one’s position or one’s resources. The community must see that crime does not pay and that the fruits of illegal activities will be reclaimed and redirected for the public good, contributing to a safer and more just Victoria.

The bill introduces several critical amendments to the Confiscation Act 1997 aimed at closing loopholes and enhancing the effectiveness of our asset confiscation regime. One of the most significant reforms in this bill is the introduction of a new unexplained wealth order. This provision allows the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply to the court for an unexplained wealth order if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person’s wealth exceeds their lawfully acquired wealth by at least $200,000. Crucially, this new order does not require a direct connection to criminal activity. This simplifies the legal process and broadens the scope of the law, making it easier to target individuals who have accumulated wealth through illegal means but have insulated themselves from direct criminal activities. Under the current framework, unexplained wealth orders require a connection to criminal activity. This often allows high-level criminals to evade justice by distancing themselves from that direct involvement in criminal acts. The new order will close this gap, enabling law enforcement to hold these individuals accountable based on their unexplained wealth alone.

The bill also broadens the definition of ‘wealth’ to include not only property but any service, advantage or benefit provided to a person. This comprehensive definition ensures that all forms of unlawfully acquired wealth, including that spent on lavish lifestyles or hidden through complex financial schemes, are captured. This broader definition is essential for targeting sophisticated criminal enterprises that use various means to obscure their ill-gotten gains. Wealth will be assessed based on its value at the time of acquisition or at the time an order is made, whichever is greater. This approach prevents depreciation from eroding the effectiveness of the law and ensures that all unlawfully acquired wealth is subject to confiscation.

Also, to ensure fairness and proportionality, the bill incorporates essential safeguards, including the court’s discretion to reduce the value of or refuse to make an unexplained wealth order if it would be manifestly unjust. This provision is vital to prevent the law from being applied in a manner that results in unreasonable or disproportionate outcomes. The court’s discretion acts as a safeguard against potential abuses of power and ensures that the law targets only those who truly engage in serious criminal conduct.

The bill also provides for restraining orders to prevent the disposal of or dealing with property while unexplained wealth order proceedings are ongoing. This measure acts as a security mechanism to preserve assets that may be subject to forfeiture. By restraining the property of individuals under investigation we ensure that they cannot dissipate their assets to avoid legal consequences. Restraining orders serve a dual purpose. They preserve the state’s ability to recover unlawfully acquired wealth and prevent individuals from using their ill-gotten gains to fund further criminal activities. This measure is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the unexplained wealth scheme.

Also, to protect the rights of individuals, the bill includes provisions that ensure statements made or evidence given by respondents cannot be used against them in other proceedings, except in cases of perjury. This safeguard protects the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination by ensuring that evidence provided in unexplained wealth proceedings is not used in other cases. We encourage transparency and honesty while protecting individual rights. The Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill significantly enhances the ability of Victoria Police and the DPP to target high-level organised crime figures who have previously managed to evade justice. These individuals often distance themselves from direct criminal activities using complex financial arrangements to obscure their involvement. By focusing on unexplained wealth, we can ensure that those who orchestrate and benefit from crime are held to account, regardless of their level of direct involvement. This bill builds on previous measures introduced in the Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2022, which expanded law enforcement powers to identify and seize digital assets. The new unexplained wealth order is a natural progression of these efforts, further empowering law enforcement to combat organised crime effectively.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken with key stakeholders to ensure that this bill is both effective and fair. Consultations have included Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and various legal bodies. While there has been broad support for the bill, some concerns have been raised regarding safeguards and the potential impact on legal rights. These concerns have been carefully considered and addressed within the bill. Victoria Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions are broadly supportive of the bill, recognising its potential to disrupt organised crime. Some legal stakeholders, including the Criminal Bar Association and Victoria Legal Aid, have raised concerns about the removal of certain safeguards initially proposed, such as the time limit on the calculation of wealth and the ability to access restrained assets for legal costs. These safeguards were removed to prevent the arbitrary restriction of the scheme and to ensure that unlawfully acquired wealth is effectively targeted.

It is worth noting that the concept of unexplained wealth orders is not unique to Victoria. Similar legislation has been enacted in various jurisdictions worldwide, including the United Kingdom, Ireland and several Australian states. These laws have proven effective in disrupting organised crime and recovering unlawfully acquired assets. For instance, the UK introduced unexplained wealth orders in 2018 as part of its efforts to combat money laundering and illicit financial flows. The legislation has enabled UK authorities to target individuals who possess wealth disproportionate to their known legitimate income, leading to significant asset recoveries. Similarly, Western Australia has implemented unexplained wealth laws that allow for confiscation of assets from individuals unable to explain the lawful origin of their wealth. These laws have been instrumental in tackling organised crime and reinforcing the message that crime does not pay. By aligning our approach with these successful models we can enhance the effectiveness of our efforts to combat organised crime and safeguard our community.

The evolution of asset confiscation laws highlights the ongoing commitment to combating organised crime and protecting the community. The introduction of the Confiscation Act 1997 marked a significant milestone in Victoria’s legislative framework, providing authorities with the tools to seize assets derived from criminal activities. Over the years the act has undergone various amendments to address emerging challenges and close legal loopholes. The Major Crime and Community Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2022, for example, expanded the powers of law enforcement to target digital assets, reflecting the changing landscape of criminal enterprises. The Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024 represents the latest step in this legislative evolution, reinforcing our commitment to staying ahead of organised crime and ensuring that our laws remain robust and effective.

The confiscation amendment bill is a crucial tool in our fight against organised crime. By targeting the financial gains that drive these activities, we can disrupt and dismantle criminal networks, thereby enhancing the safety and security of our community. These reforms represent a comprehensive and balanced approach to asset confiscation, incorporating essential safeguards to protect individual rights while empowering law enforcement to effectively combat serious crime. The passage of this bill will ensure that those who profit from crime are held accountable and that ill-gotten gains are confiscated and put to good use for the benefit of the Victorian community as a whole. For these reasons I commend the bill to the house.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:13): I rise to speak on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024, and I rise to speak against it. First and foremost, the right to a fair trial is one of the cornerstones of a just society. Without fair trials innocent people are accused, they are convicted and the rule of law and public faith in the justice system collapse. I believe it is a key role of any government to maintain law and order on behalf of the whole of society. In the battle against crime, even against serious organised crime, we must not for any reason allow ourselves and our police, our judges, our MPs, our unions, any of our organisations or people, to flout and corrupt the law. We must not make special rules for ourselves even for the sake of detection of crimes and criminals. In a democratic society even the rights of the accused are sacrosanct. The right to a fair trial means that people can be sure that the process will be fair and certain, and it prevents government and police and judges from abusing their powers. The denial of a fair trial is as much an injustice to the accused as it is to the victim and to society as a whole.

We already have proceeds-of-crime forfeiture laws. The primary objective is one that we can all agree on, and we do, which is that we do not want criminals to profit from their crimes. However, unlike traditional proceeds-of-crime laws, these unexplained wealth orders mean that police do not have to prove that a person is a criminal in order to seize that person’s wealth. They do not have to prove that the property in question is the instrument or the proceeds of a crime, and innocent third parties are not provided with any protections at all. They invert a fundamental principle of justice, which is the onus of proof. You have to be proven guilty to have any consequences laid out for you by the state. This is an absolute corruption of justice.

We all agree that we need to target organised crime. I mean, criminals are so organised these days that they have their own unions with official affiliations to governing political parties, where they can lobby to have the law rearranged to suit themselves. How are we even going to measure this unexplained wealth? Is it just money? Can it be measured in terms of privilege or double standards? Just imagine a person that is so inexplicably wealthy in terms of privilege that when investigated over a car crash that grievously injured a child, this person does not have to give over phone records or go under investigation, even when ordered to by judges and authorities. Or imagine an organisation so wealthy in terms of privilege and power that when they are caught stealing money – other people’s money that they were supposed to be managing – and spending it on an advertising campaign for themselves, they are not deregistered, is not fined and is not made to do anything at all other than put the money back. If an election is won using the proceeds of crime, can it be confiscated? Where does this end?

The fundamental principles upon which this great society was built must not be corrupted. We absolutely do have a problem with crime. In this state it is out of control. It is out of control for our youth, our unions and our political parties. Let us not keep adding more laws to the list of corrupt tools for criminals.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:17): I will just use the opportunity to make a few remarks and circulate some house amendments. Thank you to members who have made contributions on the Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Bill 2024 this afternoon. Obviously, people have outlined the intention of this legislation. In summary, it is to strengthen Victoria’s existing unexplained wealth laws by introducing a third unexplained wealth pathway that better targets unlawfully acquired wealth. Let us be clear, these are not laws that we just made up; these are laws that have been in development for some time and in heavy consultation with those that have sought them. And those that would seek to be the overseers and safety net providers of this legislation have been at the table.

It is a fact that our existing confiscation scheme is relatively robust, but Victoria Police have certainly identified some gaps in the scheme that sophisticated senior organised crime members have continued to take advantage of to the detriment of Victorians, particularly those organised crime group members who distance themselves from direct offending but continue to play a pivotal role in the movement of funds, property and favours in criminal organisations. This is what the bill is about. It is about closing those gaps. Just because you are intentionally three steps removed from criminal offending that leads you to a windfall does not mean that you should be free to indulge in lavish lifestyles at the expense of others taking on your risk. You may have taken steps to avoid criminal prosecution, but we want to ensure that you will be deprived of the use and enjoyment of any unexplained wealth. Crime should not pay, and these laws ensure that there will not be a payday for these career criminals.

I just want to reflect on some of the comments, particularly those made by the Shadow Attorney-General, referring to this bill as imposing a tax. Really, I think it might have been a throwaway line from the Shadow Attorney-General but an irresponsible one at that. It is not a tax. A tax applies to activity that is lawful. Organised crime is not welcome in our society, and the significant harm that it produces and the cost to Victorians is profound. For too long crime bosses have gotten away with orchestrating dodgy deals, burning down businesses and causing significant harm irrespective of those who may be caught in the crossfire. There are a number of suggestions that I would also just like to clear up. There have been a few concerns raised about who is the target of this legislation. I just want to make it really clear that we are not interested in the Uber Eats side work of a nine-to-five employee. We are not interested in going after a 20-year-old apprentice who is doing cashies on the side. We are specifically targeting senior organised crime figures who intentionally and cowardly hide in the shadows and order their minions, many of whom are vulnerable young people, to commit crimes and take all the risk while they sit back and enjoy the fruits of others’ criminal labour.

This pathway requires meticulous investigations followed by a sworn affidavit from a member of VicPol detailing the evidence at hand followed by the DPP assessing the merits of the case in line with her statutory obligations. This is all before the matter even gets to court. These are not trivial investigations – they are often intensive, month-long, perhaps even year-long investigations requiring VicPol to continuously monitor and assess intelligence gathered through sheer hard work and determination. If, after all, there is a question about how you acquired such significant sums, most would agree that it is a valid question that a person who has obtained something lawfully should be in a position to answer. It is often the case that police are questioned on how they will undertake these powers – and they are significant powers, I certainly acknowledge that – but to make assertions that they would be abused by VicPol really does undervalue the critical work that VicPol do in intelligence gathering and countering fraud and combating other illicit activity.

I do want to make some comments in regard to attacks that have been made on the DPP, including by the Shadow Attorney-General and perhaps his representative in here – although I will, to his benefit, add that I did not hear it; I only had it reported to me. They were extraordinary comments – completely unprecedented. There is a continual, baseless attack on our DPP, who let me be clear, has done an exemplary job in the face of multiple attempts to assassinate her character. It is not only an attack on the independence of the DPP but an attempt by the opposition and some others with vested interests to undermine our prosecutorial and broader justice system. It is, frankly, unwelcome, unbecoming and inappropriate. To those that make those comments: if you are an MP, you are not fit to govern, and luckily for us most Victorians already know that.

In relation to some of the issues that I will address in the committee stage through the house amendments that I will move, they are in effect a response to concerns raised by the Liberal Party. One negates the house amendment because it is the same; we did not have a problem with that suggestion. I do not have any reason to support the reasoned amendment. This is a bill that has been subjected to a lot of consultation and should not be delayed further. With respect to safeguards, the two amendments that I do intend to move include the 10-year limit on the calculation of wealth. So while the bill as introduced already contains significant safeguards, this additional protection is being introduced to respond to the concerns about safeguards to ensure that people are not subject to unexplained wealth action for historical wealth that they might not be able to account for.

The first amendment places a 10-year time limit on the calculation of wealth under the new unexplained wealth pathway. The reform will mean that wealth acquired more than 10 years prior to the application for an unexplained wealth order is considered to have been lawfully acquired. The amendment adds to existing protections in the bill relating to the existence and use of the production of evidence other than documentary evidence that the court may accept as evidence. The 10-year time limit also intends to provide an additional safeguard to ensure that the new unexplained wealth orders apply only to the most serious examples of serious and organised crime where significant unexplained wealth has been accrued in a confined time period. It will also maximise the chances of primary documents revealing lawful acquisition being available and provide certainty to the community that they will be not called to account for a lifetime of earnings.

As I have indicated, a statutory review provision is being proposed requiring the operation of the new unexplained wealth pathway to be reviewed three years after commencement. The review will ensure that the new unexplained wealth pathway is appropriately targeted, proportionate and effective, while providing an avenue to identify opportunities to further make improvements to the pathway as they become evident. The review into the operation of the new unexplained wealth pathway will be conducted three years after the bill has commenced. With that, I am happy to enter the committee stage to discuss those amendments and any other matters that members would like to discuss. Prior to that I will formally circulate the amendments to be discussed.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): The question is that the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Mulholland be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (15): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (33): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt

Noes (2): Moira Deeming, David Limbrick

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clauses 1 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 (17:36)

Jaclyn SYMES: It is good to be back in the chair. Luckily for me, I outlined these amendments in my summing-up. I move:

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).”.

Evan MULHOLLAND: We will not be opposing these amendments, and we will not be opposing the additional amendments as well. I thank my colleague Michael O’Brien for working constructively in the formation of both amendments in regard to this.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 25 to 45 agreed to.

New clause (17:38)

Jaclyn SYMES: This is the review clause that I outlined in my contribution and I believe Mr Mulholland outlined in his contribution, so they effectively achieve the same thing. Echoing Mr Mulholland’s comments, despite some unwelcome commentary, the Shadow Attorney-General has engaged very constructively with me and my office on this bill. It is good that we have reached agreement on the majority of it, including the amendments, and it has led to the efficiencies of today. I move:

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.”.’.

New clause agreed to; clauses 46 to 48 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:40): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:40): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.