Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 307 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

they risk losing their livelihood and their home. The Government does not consider that people whose assets derive from unlawful activity should be in a more advantageous position than an ordinary citizen who is sued for damages, by being given the "protection"of a higher standard of proof.

The Liberal Party endorses that position and agrees wholeheartedly with it. The Attorney goes on to say:

I have already explained why that is inappropriate here. So the government agrees with that.

Further down on page 2 in relation to the question of whether the proposed civil forfeiture scheme is an undue trespass on civil liberties-and this is one of the things the committee had to look at and raise-the Attorney responded:

Again, I draw that to members' attention.

Basically, I think some good points are made in the Attorney's reply, especially in advising the Assembly why this scheme needs to be put in place. The obvious differences between the criminal law and the civil law are clearly explained. When you think about it, the measures contained in this bill have been applied previously and obviously have been accepted effectively throughout the Commonwealth of Australia and, indeed, in other similar jurisdictions such as those in the UK and the USA.

The Attorney makes a number of other responses in his reply, which I will not deal with. However, I think it is worth noting what he had to say under the heading "Self-incrimination and other privileges overridden"because this is an important issue. The Attorney said:

MR SPEAKER: Order! The time being 12.30, I understand that it the wish of the Assembly to adjourn for lunch.

Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .