Rau robs victims to appear ‘tough’
Attorney-General Rau’s proposal to bankrupt drug offenders of assets earned from legitimate means robs victims and will risk constitutional challenge, says Shadow Attorney-General Stephen Wade.
Provisions within the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offender) Amendment Bill 2011 allow the Government to divert proceeds from assets confiscated under the provisions away from the Victims of Crime Fund.
Under the legislation, proceeds from confiscations are explicitly banned from going towards victims who are eligible to receive a payment from the Victims of Crime Fund
[1]. Instead the money will be used for infrastructure projects usually paid for out of general revenue.
“Attorney-General Rau is robbing the victims to pay for Labor’s mismanagement.
“The Bill would confiscate wealth that had no connection to crime, over and above any criminal penalties applied by the courts.
“The policy is simply about appearing tough on crime. The Attorney-General cares more about finding the money to fill the budget gap than about justice.
“These changes may actually see an increase in drug offences as the laws would take all legitimate means of income taken away from them” said Mr Wade.
In a submission the Law Society has described the legislation as “inimical to a free society” and said that “to say this is draconian only tells a fraction”.
During debate on the Bill, the Attorney-General appeared reluctant to support his own legislation, saying “this legislation, in many respects, is a departure from what one would call the normal or established principles which most lawyers would regard as appropriate” (see attached).
There have been questions raised over the constitutionality of the draconian laws. Labor has recklessly introduced legislation that could see it fighting the courts again rather than organised crime.
Attachment
In his comments during the Second Reading in Parliament yesterday, Attorney-General Rau said in response to Liberal Opposition speakers that:
“As a lawyer I obviously understand the points that both speakers [Mr John Gardner MP and Ms Vickie Chapman MP] have made and, in general terms, it would be hard to dismiss the remarks made by either of the speakers as being irrelevant, frivolous or foolish. I do not even pretend to do that.”
He then went on to say that “I realise that this legislation, in many respects, is a departure from what one would call the normal or established principles which most lawyers would regard as being appropriate. I am not going to go through them all because the member for Bragg [Vickie Chapman] has enumerated those and so has the Law Society.”
“this is the policy that was put to the public and all I am doing, in conformity with the promise made by the current government in the run-up to the last election, is bringing forward the proposal that was made.”
(Hansard, House of Assembly, Attorney-General John Rau, 28 July 2011, p 4788)
[1]Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offender) Amendment Bill 2011, section 36, inserted section 209A(6)(b)