Bleijie stands firm on unexplained wealth Bill despite criticism

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said the state had introduced its own legislation, the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation (Unexplained Wealth and Serious Drug Offender Confiscation Order) Amendment Bill 2012, and did not need the federal government taking over.

“Should this Bill be passed, Queensland will have its own unexplained wealth laws, ensuring Queensland has the toughest laws in the country for dealing with organised crime,” Mr Bleijie said.

“There is no need to refer powers when Queensland has the legislation and powers to deal with organised crime.

“How can Queenslanders have confidence in the federal government's ability to deal with this issue? They can't stop illegal boats, how can we expect them to stop outlaw bikies already here?”

The state government's unexplained wealth laws would reverse the onus of proof.

A research brief prepared by the parliamentary library explained “in principle, prosecutors would not need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a person's property/benefits were obtained via criminal activity. Instead, if a person has accumulated wealth that does not seem commensurate with his/her lifestyle and livelihood, that person would bear the onus of proving that the wealth was legitimately acquired”.

The proposed legislation compliments existing legislation, but takes the conviction-based confiscation laws a step further.

But the Queensland Law Society has questioned the need for the additional laws given "similar legislation already exists".

"Considering the government is keen to reduce red tape, the measures add nothing to the process already in place for convicted persons and in fact unnecessarily adds to existing legislation,” QLS president Annette Bradfield said.

“In addition, the draft legislation makes confiscations too easy to occur and difficult to disprove.

“It reverses the onus of proof, has a low statutory test and impacts on the discretion of the courts."

Ms Bradfield's position echoed that of the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties vice president Terry O'Gorman, who has also raised concerns about the reversal of the the onus of proof.

"The reversal of the onus of proof is inherent in unexplained wealth laws, as there is an assumption that wealth and assets have been illegally obtained,” Ms Bradfield said.

“This undermines the presumption of innocence and – totally contrary to how our legal system works – places an oppressive onus of proof on the respondent.

“Taking someone's assets is a highly intrusive act and if this legislation goes through as currently drafted, the government is at serious risk of confiscating lawfully obtained assets and the assets of innocent people.

“There needs to be a link between the assets and commission of an offence.

“The low statutory test of 'reasonable suspicion' makes it very easy for assets to be seized as it's a poor basis for acting.

“Surely for an action that's as invasive as reaching into someone's home, business or bank account and taking what's there, a higher test than mere suspicion should be applied?

“Compounding the problem is a mandatory requirement for courts to make confiscation orders if someone is convicted of a serious drug offence."

Ms Bradfield called on the government to make amendments to the draft legislation.

“However, if the government is determined to bring in more legislation, we recommend the legislation at least be redrafted so the onus of proof is not reversed, the statutory test is stricter and the Supreme Court has the discretion to decide if an unexplained wealth order is required.”