Scott Morrison's secretive new public sector corruption division with no teeth - not even a set of badly fitting dentures

Alan Moir Cartoon

A federal statutory body, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) has been in existence since December 2006 and is headed by the Integrity Commissioner. The current Integrity Commissioner is Michael Griffin AM.

There is also a Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACLEI.

The Morrison plan for a new Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) intends to retain the ACLEI as one of two divisions within the CIC and expand the number of government agencies within this first division’s jurisdiction from twelve (12) to sixteen (16) – otherwise it is business as usual for the multi-agency ACLEI.

At the same time the Morrison Government intends the over-arching CIC to have a second division – the Public Sector Division - without the full powers of statutory anti-corruption commissions.

It is this division which will be charged with investigating corruption allegations based on interactions of sitting members of federal parliament and departmental staff with corporations, lobby groups and private individuals.

Members of the public will have no right to lay complaints or concerns before the Deputy-Commissioner who will head this second division. Only departmental heads and the Australian Federal Police appear to have the right to refer a matter to the Public Sector Division.

The division will not hold public hearings or publish the results of any secret hearings. There will be no transparency in its processes.

This second division represents business as usual for federal parliamentarians, as the government of the day will be able to keep even the most egregious matters under its adjudication by asserting the matter should be classified as a straightforward Code of Conduct breach or a simple matter of non-compliance.

The new Commonwealth Integrity Commission is expected to have an annual budget of around $30 million. A sum which reflects its toothless status.

BACKGROUND

Commonwealth Integrity Commission — proposed reforms, December 2018, excerpts:

The Australian Government proposes to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) to detect, deter and investigate suspected corruption and to work with agencies to build their resilience to corruption and their capability to deal with corrupt misconduct. The CIC will consist of a ‘law enforcement integrity division’ incorporating the existing structure, jurisdiction and powers of ACLEI and a new ‘public sector integrity division’. Both the law enforcement and public sector divisions of the CIC will be headed by separate deputy commissioners, who will each report to a new Commonwealth Integrity Commissioner. The two divisions will have different jurisdictional coverage, powers and functions, tailored to the nature of the entities within their jurisdiction. The law enforcement division will retain the powers and functions of ACLEI, but with an expanded jurisdiction to cover several further agencies that exercise the most significant coercive powers and therefore present a more significant corruption risk. The public sector division will cover the remaining public sector. As such, its powers and functions will be different to those of the law enforcement division and will be appropriately tailored.

Jurisdiction 

Law enforcement division

The law enforcement division will have jurisdiction over those agencies already within ACLEI’s remit, being:

• the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission

• the AFP • the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)

• the Department of Home Affairs, and

• prescribed aspects of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR).

 Its jurisdiction will also be expanded to cover additional public sector agencies with law enforcement functions and access to sensitive information, such as the:

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

• Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and

• Australian Taxation Office (ATO)……

Public sector division

The public sector division of the CIC will have jurisdiction over:

• public service departments and agencies, parliamentary departments, statutory agencies, Commonwealth companies and Commonwealth corporations

• Commonwealth service providers and any subcontractors they engage, and

• parliamentarians and their staff.

By extending the jurisdiction of the public sector division of the CIC to service providers and contractors, the CIC will have the capacity to oversee the integrity of entities which expend or receive significant amounts of Commonwealth funding where there is evidence of corrupt conduct that meets the relevant criminal threshold proposed. The CIC will also be able to investigate members of the public or other private entities that receive or deal with Commonwealth funds (and might not otherwise be within jurisdiction), to the extent that their suspected corrupt conduct intersects with a public official’s suspected corrupt conduct….

The public sector division of the CIC will be responsible for investigating ‘corrupt conduct’ where the commissioner has a reasonable suspicion that the conduct in question constitutes a criminal offence. Notably, the public sector division will investigate conduct capable of constituting a nominated range of specific new and existing criminal offences that will constitute corrupt conduct in the public sector.

 ‘Corrupt conduct’ will include abuse of public office, misuse of official information and non-impartial exercise of official functions. A range of consolidated and new public sector corruption offences will be included in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code). The information below under the heading ‘Amendments to the Criminal Code’ outlines a preliminary summary of ways in which amendments might be made to relevant legislative offences that will collectively form the jurisdictional basis for the CIC. 

It is intended that the public sector division will focus on the investigation of serious or systemic corrupt conduct, rather than looking into issues of misconduct or non-compliance under various codes of conduct. Misconduct that is not defined as a criminal offence at Commonwealth law is considered more appropriately dealt with by the entities where the misconduct occurs: public sector agencies for public servants; Houses of Parliament for parliamentarians; the Prime Minister for Ministers; the Special Minister of State for ministerial staff….

Powers

Law enforcement division

The law enforcement division of the CIC will have access to the coercive and investigative powers that ACLEI currently does—these are necessary because the agencies within jurisdiction themselves have access to significant coercive powers and in many cases, sensitive intelligence, personal or other information. The consequences of corruption in circumstances where public officials have access to law enforcement or other coercive powers is generally more significant than for public officials without access to such powers. Those with access to coercive powers and knowledge of law enforcement methods are better able to disguise corruption and corrupt conduct can have a greater impact (for example, where millions of dollars of illicit drugs are permitted to enter the Australian economy). 8 The law enforcement division will have the power to:

• compel the production of documents

• question people

• hold public and private hearings

• arrest

• enter/search premises

• seize evidence

• undertake controlled operations and assumed identities, and

• undertake integrity testing.

Public sector division

The powers available to the public sector division reflect the different nature of the corruption risk in the areas it will oversight. The public sector division of the CIC will have the power to:

• compel the production of documents

• question people

• hold private hearings, and

• enter/search premises.

It will not be able to:

• exercise arrest warrants

• hold public hearings, or

• make findings of corruption, criminal conduct or misconduct at large.

The extent to which the CIC public sector integrity division will have the ability to access telecommunications and surveillance device powers will be part of the consultation process on the proposed model. The law enforcement integrity division will retain all powers that ACLEI currently holds......

Referrals about parliamentarians and their staff 

The public sector division could receive a referral regarding a parliamentarian or their staff that met the CIC’s threshold for investigation from the IPEA, the AEC, the AFP or other integrity agencies. For example, if the IPEA observed potentially corrupt conduct that it reasonably suspected was capable of constituting a criminal offence, it could refer that activity to the CIC for investigation. 

The public sector division of the CIC will also be able to investigate parliamentarians or their staff where an existing CIC investigation into suspected corruption within a different part of the public sector revealed evidence that will meet the investigation threshold. For example, if the CIC was investigating suspected criminal corrupt conduct within a procurement process involving a department, and through that investigation it found evidence suggesting corrupt activity by any Member of Parliament or member of the executive government which it reasonably expected met the relevant criminal threshold, the CIC could initiate an investigation into that matter. 

The CIC will not investigate direct complaints about Ministers, Members of Parliament or their staff received from the public at large.......

Centrelink's 'robodebt' headed to the Australian Federal Court?

9 News, 10 December 2018:

Centrelink’s robo-debt recovery scheme was intended to seek out and destroy debts, but instead it’s thrown more than 200,000 Australians into financial turmoil.

Now, Victoria’s former head prosecutor, QC Gavin Silbert, is lending his voice and fighting back against the controversial system which aims to claw back up to $4.5 billion in welfare overpayments.

“I think it’s illegal and I think it’s scandalous. In any other situation, you’d call it theft. I think they’re bullying very vulnerable people,” Mr Silbert told A Current Affair. 

“If debts are owed to the public purse they should be paid, they should be pursued. These are not such debts,” he said.

He’s teamed up with Melbourne-based solicitor Jeremy King to take a pro bono case to the Federal Court which, if successful, could derail the robo-debt scheme and see thousands of debts wiped.

“I hope this would set a precedent to show that the way this robo-debt scheme had been rolled out is not in accordance with the law and all of the other debts that have been sent out to people are not in accordance with the law,” Mr King said....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 December 2018:

Gavin Silbert, QC, who retired as the state's chief crown prosecutor in March, has accused the Department of Human Services of ignoring its legal obligations and acting like a bully towards some of the nation's most vulnerable people.

A potential legal challenge could have significant implications for future enforcement of the robo-debt program, which aims to claw back up to $4.5 billion in welfare overpayments with more than 1.5 million "compliance interventions".

Mr Silbert became embroiled in the dispute when someone he knew was issued with a demand to repay a debt of $10,230.97, which the department claimed was overpaid by Centrelink between 2010 and 2013.

He has provided pro bono advice and helped prepare correspondence to the department, which repeatedly asked for an explanation on how the debt was calculated.

However, the department's compliance branch has ignored nine letters between May and November 2018 that requested additional information. Last week, it made threats to impose interest charges on the original debt.

"Other than the bald assertion that I have a debt, I have never received any details of how the debt is alleged to have arisen or anything which would enable me to verify or understand the demand made of me," Mr Silbert's client wrote on June 7.

In another letter, Mr Silbert's client wrote: "There is not a court in the country that will uphold your demands for interest in the absence of fundamental details of how the amount is alleged to have arisen."

The dispute escalated further when the department engaged debt collection agency Dun & Bradstreet, which threatened Mr Silbert's client with a "departure prohibition order" that would prevent him travelling overseas.

Mr Silbert is keen to launch Federal Court action to test the legal basis of the robo-debt program and the government's apparent unwillingness to provide particulars.

"I'm itching to get this before a court," he told Fairfax Media.

He said legislation that regulates data-matching technology requires the department to "give particulars of the information and the proposed action" before it can recover overpayments.

The robo-debt program, introduced by the Coalition government, calculates a former welfare recipient's debt by taking a fortnightly average rather than discovering the exact amount that was claimed.

The department was forced to concede it was no longer in possession of the original claims made to Centrelink by Mr Silbert's friend, after he made requests under freedom-of-information laws.

Climate Change: Wallarah 2 longwall coal mine legal challenge

The Australian Coal Alliance states it is; concerned citizens of the Central Coast are worried about the impact that longwall coal mining in the Central Coast Water Catchment Valleys and beneath residential homes will have upon our drinking water catchment, and upon our health, lifestyle and properties. We will continue to demand that the government introduces legislation into the Parliament to protect the Wyong Water Catchment District, the largest drinking water resource on the Central Coast, from mineral extraction, and to protect homes from being undermined by longwall coal mining.

This is its legal battle............

Environmental Defenders Office NSW, 14 November 2018:

EDO NSW, on behalf of the Australian Coal Alliance (ACA), argued in Court that the Planning Assessment Commission’s (PAC) decision to approve the Wallarah 2 longwall coal mine on the Central Coast was unlawful and invalid.

Barristers Craig Leggat SC and Josie Walker argued against the approval of the mine on the basis of climate change, ecologically sustainable development, impacts to water resources and flooding impacts.

The legal team: Craig Leggat SC, Josie Walker of Counsel, Brendan Dobbie, Acting Principal Solicitor and Isaac St Clair-Burns, Solicitor of EDO NSW.

 “Our client ACA argued that the PAC’s decision was invalid on 10 specific grounds”, said David Morris, CEO of EDO NSW. "We focused on the PAC’s assessment of the mine’s downstream greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the Central Coast water supply and likely flood-affected properties.”

The Wallarah 2 project is predicted to have impacts on 88 private properties, which will be exposed, in varying degrees, to increased risks of flooding. The mine has proposed various options to mitigate those impacts or, where that is not practicable, to make arrangements for the voluntary purchase of flood affected properties. The ACA questioned the legal validity of those conditions.

In addition to the predicted impacts from flooding and to the Central Coast water supply, Wallarah 2 will make a substantial contribution to greenhouse gas emissions – estimated to be more than 264 million tonnes of CO2 over the 28-year life of the mine. NSW law required the PAC to consider an assessment of those emissions when approving the mine. However, the ACA argued in Court that the PAC specifically disavowed consideration of downstream greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the approval was contrary to the law and also to the principles of ecologically sustainable development, which includes the principle of intergenerational equity.

“This case is by its very nature climate change litigation, which we’re seeing more and more in Australia. We argued that the law in this case wasn’t followed with respect to climate change impacts and the principle of intergenerational equity”, David Morris said.

Of additional interest, this was a paperless trial, one of the first that EDO NSW has been involved with, and it proceeded very smoothly.

A judgment is expected sometime before the end of May 2019.

Further detail on this case can be found here: www.edonsw.org.au/wallarah2_aca

EDO NSW is an independent community legal centre specialising in public interest environmental law and members of Northern Rivers communites can contact the EDO at any time via the hotline on 1800 626 239 for free legal advice concerning local environmental matters.

“In an unprecedented move, the Morrison government has questioned the Federal Court's authority to commence cases that allow sick children to be brought to Australia for emergency medical care.”

The Guardian, 26 October 2018:

The Australian government is challenging the legality of the federal court hearing applications for urgent medical transfers of refugees and asylum seekers held on Nauru.

The move comes amid a rush of transfers, and appears in contrast to claims made by Australian Border Force to those detainees that the delays are due to the Nauruan government.

Should the federal court action be successful it has the potential to void some previous orders, forcing those cases to refile in the high court.

The rate of medical transfer orders has ratcheted up as the health crisis worsens, criticism of the policy strengthens, and the Nauruans appear to have stopped attempting to block departures.

The home affairs department raised the jurisdictional challenge in a case involving a child detainee, her mother and two siblings, Fairfax Media reported.

The family have already been transferred to Australia. But lawyers for Peter Dutton’s department have continued to argue that under section 494AB of the Migration Act, the federal court cannot hear legal proceedings against the commonwealth relating to a “transitory person”. It is believed to be the first time the government has made this argument in about 50 cases relating to the transfer of people from Nauru.

On Thursday two federal court judges ordered both parties to submit their arguments in coming days for a yet-to-be scheduled expedited hearing, expected next week. The child, an 11-year-old Iranian girl, is being represented by the law firm Robinson Gill and the Human Rights Law Centre.

“This has come out of the blue, and there’s a risk it could make it much harder for desperately unwell children to get the urgent, lifesaving medical care they need,” said Daniel Webb, director of legal advocacy at the HRLC.

The challenge appears at odds with the government’s messages to detainees laying the blame for transfer delays with Nauruan authorities. Guardian Australia is aware of ABF writing or verbally suggesting to people or their lawyers that the department had approved their medical transfer but Nauru was holding up cases.

The Sydney MorningHerald, 24 October 2018:

The legal point was raised last week in the case of an 11-year-old Iranian girl held on Nauru who had not eaten in more than two weeks.

Medical experts gave evidence she was facing “imminent death” if she was not treated by paediatrics experts in an Australian intensive care ward.

However, lawyers acting for the Home Affairs Department argued that under section 494 AB of the Migration Act the court could not hear the case as it did not have jurisdiction because she was a “transitory person.”

The past two months have not been great for NSW Police public relations

The Daily Examiner, 8 October 2018, p.3:

Two police officers have been served with future court attendance notices for alleged offences related to the use and access of a NSW Police Force computer system.

Police said the 43-year-old male senior constable and the 40-year-old female leading senior constable, both attached to Northern Region, are alleged to have modified data in October, last year.

The woman has been charged with unauthorised access of restricted data and the man has been charged with unauthorised modification of restricted data.

They are both due to appear at Coffs Harbour Local Court on Tuesday, November 23.

The West Australian, 6 October 2018:

A Sydney police officer has been stood down after allegedly making sickening threats towards a Greens Senator’s young daughter.

Sarah Hanson-Young was targeted by what she calls vile, cowardly and intolerable threats at the height of her public stoush with Senator David Lleyonhjelm.

But Ms Hanson-Young says the threats went further, targeting her 11-year-old daughter in a call made five days after her joust with Mr Lleyonhjelm.

“I have spoken to her about it,” she said.

“Of course it’s a difficult thing to explain.

“I was very shocked to know that it was a police officer.

“It's disgusting and no child deserves this, no young woman deserves this and to do it is not just cowardly, it's vile.”....

Federal police charged the 56-year-old cop with using a carriage service to menace, harass, offend after raiding his south-western Sydney home.

The senior constable has since been stood down and his employment is under review….

The officer will face court next month and faces up to seven years’ in prison if convicted.

NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, Media Release, 20 September 2018:

RELEASE OF REPORT ON LECC OPERATION BALTRA

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has found that a Leading Senior Constable engaged in serious misconduct after he punched an intoxicated woman (Ms Z) in police custody on 15 September 2017.*

The Commission’s Operation Baltra held private hearings to determine whether the officer involved (Officer A): 

1. Used excessive force when he punched Ms Z to the head with a closed fist whilst her hands were handcuffed behind her back.

2. [blank]

3. Breached NSWPF policies and guidelines when he recorded the CCTV footage of the incident on his mobile phone and subsequently shared that footage with a Snapchat group, which comprised other police officers from Police Station X.

The Commission has found that the punch with a closed fist by Officer A to the side of Ms Z’s head was an unreasonable use of force and that Officer A engaged in serious  misconduct as defined in section 10 of the LECC Act. 

The Commission is satisfied that Officer A was in breach of the NSWPF policies and guidelines with respect to his filming of the CCTV footage and that the dissemination of it to other police officers via Snapchat was unauthorised.  Notwithstanding this finding, the Commission is satisfied that Officer A genuinely believed that he was not breaching any policies or guidelines by sharing the information with other police officers in his team. 

The Commission’s recommendation, outlined in its Operation Baltra report presented to Parliament today, is that consideration should be given to the taking of action against Officer A with a view to dismissing the officer pursuant to section 181D of the Police Act 1990. 

The Operation Baltra report and associated footage can be found on the Commission website. 

Background

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission is an independent statutory body. The principal functions of the Commission are to detect, investigate and expose serious misconduct and serious maladministration within the NSW Police Force and the NSW Crime Commission. 

The Commission is separate from and completely independent of the NSW Police Force and NSW Crime Commission. The Commission will treat all information confidentially and has powers to protect persons who provide information to it. 

* Codenames have been used in the report to protect the identities of the involved persons. 

The Northern Star, 21 September 2018, p.1:

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has found a police officer who inflicted multiple baton strikes on a naked 16-year-old boy in Byron Bay used excessive force and should be considered for prosecution.

The commission’s Operation Tambora arose out of events involving the arrest of the teenager by four police officers in Lateen Lane on January 11 this year.

On February 6, Channel 9’s A Current Affair aired mobile phone footage showing police apprehending the boy in the early hours of the morning. The footage showed at least one officer using a baton repeatedly to subdue him.

The teenager, referred to as “AO” in the commission’s report, had been holidaying with his family in Byron Bay at the time of the incident.

The investigation was primarily concerned with the conduct of the police officers when attempting to take AO into custody. This involved consideration of whether the decisions by the police officers to use OC spray and a taser were justified in the circumstances. There was also a significant issue as to the need for the use of a baton on AO and, in particular, the number and force of baton strikes that were administered to AO, particularly those administered by “Officer E” at a time when AO appeared to be restrained.....

Sometime Australian Prime Minister & MP for Cook, Scott Morrison, is the protector of religious freedom? Don't make me laugh

This was Australia’s most recent Liberal prime minister quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald on 17 September 2018:

Prime Minister Scott Morrison will enact "preventative regulation and legislation" to shield freedom of religion from future enemies, giving his strongest hints to date about the government's intentions regarding "religious freedom" laws.

What a load of codswallop, manure, dung, heifers dust, cowpats, meadow cocktails – what ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T!

The Liberal Member for Cook Scott Morrison already knows that the Australian Constitution without qualification guarantees religious freedom in this country at federal level:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 116

Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion

                   The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. [my yellow highlighting]

As the Australian Constitution is the highest source in the land on this issue, one can only suspect that:

a) Scott Morrison has never read the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (as amended up to 1977); or

b) Scott Morrison is shamelessly pandering to his far-right, ideologically blind & bigoted supporter base, in the hope of being re-elected in 2019.

He appears to forget that Australia has also ratified a number of UN resolutions which directly or indirectly protect religious freedom and these have been upheld by the courts.

While he ignores the fact that Tasmania has had a religious freedom provision written into its state constitution since 1934 and Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, the Northern Territory as well as the ACT have passed legislation prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination on the ground of religion. Only South Australia appears to have no legislation specifically covering religious freedom to date.

Morrison also forgets that whatever legislation he forces through this parliament, or whatever regulations he imposes, can all be undone in the first instance by subsequent federal parliaments and in the second instance by the minister of the day.

If he really wants to genuinely strengthen existing religious freedoms he would call a referendum to change the Australian Constitution.

Even a callow first-year-in-parliament politician knows that when state law is in conflict with federal law it is federal law which usually prevails and, if either is in conflict with the Constitution it will be the Constitution which prevails.

Having well and truly politicised his own faith Morrison may in fact be creating his own "future enemies" - he has all but guaranteed that someone will take his legislation and regulations to the High Court of Australia - where every word, phrase and punctuation mark will be studied closely.

Tweets of the Week

Supreme Court of QLD found that Wagner brothers have succeeded in their defamation claim against Alan Jones, 2GB, and 4BC . Awarded a total of $3.754m. Read summary and judgment here, https://t.co/zze75fWRnn

— Supreme Court of QLD (@SupremeCourtQLD) September 11, 2018

* Between 28 October 2014 and 20 August 2015, 2GB Radio and Alan Jones published 30 broadcasts. Twenty-seven of these broadcasts conveyed 76 defamatory imputations of and concerning the Wagner brothers according to the Court*

“Sneaky laws which declare you as guilty in the eyes of the law the minute the police say you are guilty” - Turnbull Government legislative overreach continues in 2018?

Sydney Criminal Lawyers, 16 August 2018:

A Senate committee has just given the Turnbull government the green light to nationalise a scheme that allows government to seize citizens’ assets unless their legitimate origins can be explained, even if the owner of the wealth hasn’t been charged with let alone convicted of an offence.

On 6 August, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the federal government pass the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 without any changes.

Unexplained wealth laws currently exist in every Australian jurisdiction, but the new scheme provides a broader model allowing for federal and state authorities to work in collaboration across jurisdictional borders to target serious and organised crime.

“The scale and complexity of this criminal threat has necessitated an enhanced focus on cooperative, cross-jurisdictional responses by Australian governments,” home affairs minister Peter Dutton said in the second reading speech of the bill.

However, critics of the scheme warn that existing unexplained wealth laws undermine the rule of law and broadening their scope will lead to a further erosion of civil liberties. And while these laws are meant to target untouchable crime bosses, they’re actually being used against petty criminals.

Presumption of guilt

“These beefed-up laws bring down all the secret surveillance and the swapping of scuttlebutt masquerading as intelligence on everyone in Australia,” Civil Liberties Australia CEO Bill Rowlings told Sydney Criminal Lawyers.

“The unexplained wealth laws completely overturn the presumption of innocence, which is part of our rule of law in Australia,” he continued. “They are sneaky laws which declare you as guilty in the eyes of the law the minute the police say you are guilty.”

Unexplained wealth laws are a recent development in Australia. But, unlike other proceeds of crime laws that allow for the confiscation of assets derived from prosecuted criminal acts, unexplained wealth places the onus upon the individual to prove their wealth was legally acquired.

“People don’t understand, under these laws the government can confiscate your assets even if you haven’t been found guilty of anything,” Mr Rowlings stressed.

Broadening the reach

The current Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws were introduced in 2010 via amendments made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (the Act).

These laws apply where there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” an individual’s assets have been derived from a committed federal offence, “a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect.”

There are three sorts of orders that can be sought in relation to unexplained wealth. Section 20A of the Act provides that a court can issue an unexplained wealth restraining order, which is an interim order that restricts an individual’s ability to dispose of property.

Section 179B of the Act allows for the issuance of a preliminary order, which requires a person to appear in court to prove their wealth is legitimate. And under section 179E, an order can be issued requiring that the payment of an amount of wealth deemed unlawful be made to the government.

The new legislation amends sections 20A and 179E, so that these orders can be issued in respect to relevant offences of participating states, as well as in relation to territory offences. Relevant state offences will be outlined in state legislation that enables participation in the national scheme.

Sharing it around

The legislation broadens the access authorities have to an individual’s banking information in relation to an unexplained wealth investigation.

Section 213 of the Act allows certain authorised Commonwealth officers to issue access notices to financial institutions. This provision will now be extended to states and territory law enforcement agencies.

Proposed section 297C of the Act outlines how federal, state and territory governments will divvy up the seized wealth. A subcommittee will be established to distribute the money. And while any state that opts out of the scheme will be eligible for a share, it will be a less favourable amount.

The legislation also makes amendments to the sharing of information provisions contained in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.…..

Backdoor revenue raising

The NSW government has already introduced legislation into parliament, which enables that state to participate in the national scheme. The legislation sets out that the relevant offences the laws apply to are set out in section 6(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.

NSW police minister Troy Grant told parliament that the legislation allows the state to refer matters to the Commonwealth, which then authorises the Australian federal police to use certain NSW offences as a basis for the confiscation of unexplained wealth.

But, Mr Rowlings states that the nationalising of the scheme will actually streamline a process that sees the unwarranted confiscation of wealth to prop up government coffers.

“The cash seized is paying for extra government lawyers to help seize more cash,” Mr Rowlings made clear, “so it’s a devious upward spiral where more and more unconvicted people will have their assets taken, and then have to prove their innocence or the government gets their assets.”

Read the full article here.