David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to, once again, oppose legislation that allows the seizure of property of Australians, like you and me, who have not been suspected, charged or convicted of an offence—the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The bill allows the seizure of a person's wealth if a court is satisfied that the wealth is unexplained and the person can merely be linked to a state or territory offence, possibly an offence committed by someone else. Currently, Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation requires a link to a Commonwealth offence.

The bill allows state and territory authorities to apply to seize wealth under Commonwealth unexplained wealth legislation. This is despite the fact that the states and territories already have their own confiscation laws. This includes Western Australia where the Hon. Aaron Stonehouse, a member of the legislative council representing the Liberal Democrats, has successfully lobbied for the draconian laws to be reviewed. The idea that the Commonwealth should charge ahead with unexplained wealth laws while Western Australia is pulling back is ludicrous.

The bill before us today allows state and territory authorities to use surveillance powers under Commonwealth law for the purposes of pursuing unexplained wealth. State and territory authorities can already access Commonwealth surveillance powers for the purpose of investigating real crimes. Finally, the bill allows seized wealth to be shared between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and any relevant foreign government. I call this 'the booty clause'. Perhaps 'the ill-gotten booty clause' would be better.

Unexplained wealth provisions are separate from the completely justified law dealing with the proceeds of crime. Unexplained wealth legislation does not discriminate between a person who commits a crime and a person who does not. Put simply, unexplained wealth legislation allows the government to seize assets from a person with no conviction simply because the origin of their wealth is not immediately obvious upon review of their tax returns. Unexplained wealth legislation requires no suggestion of criminal activity, no charge of criminal activity and no criminal conviction. The legislation forces a judge who is simply not satisfied that the wealth of an individual was gained by proper and legal means to confiscate a person's assets. Unexplained wealth legislation throws out the fundamental tenet of Western civilisation that citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Assets are seized whenever a person is unable or unwilling to explain every detail behind their wealth. There are numerous reasons why a person might be unable to document the accumulation of their wealth and, more importantly, there are numerous reasons why a person might be unwilling to explain their wealth and should not be forced to—for example, if your wealth was gifted to you from a biological parent and you don't want it known that you were adopted; or if your wealth came from a lover who doesn't want it known you were having an affair. Those are just two possibilities.

Unexplained wealth legislation requires a person to justify to a judge that their wealth is legitimate, rather than requiring law enforcement to prove it was gained by unlawful means. The legislation essentially waives the requirement of evidence in order for punishment to be applied. Instead, it requires a person to provide evidence outlining how they have not broken any law when accumulating their wealth. We are not talking about the wealth of millionaires here either. Most seizures are of houses below the median house price and of cars below the average value of cars on our roads.

We are a Western liberal democracy, but unexplained wealth legislation and the seizure of assets without conviction is what you would expect from a despotic, undemocratic, authoritarian regime. This legislation is wrong and the Liberal Democrats oppose it.