Mr. Kevin McMeel:

I am happy to address some of that and perhaps a lot of the concerns the Senator has could be dealt with in one response. The Senator's concerns for the most part centre around third parties, that is, people who seem to be affected by the orders and may be in danger, vulnerable or losing properties as a result of the orders being made. I think her first concern was about access to justice and ensuring that there were safeguards in that respect. There are two provisions within the Act that allow people to access legal representation. The first is in section 6 of the Act, which allows people to apply to the court for moneys out of the assets being seized, the subject matter of the application, and the courts may or may not grant that order.

Since 1998, two years after the enactment, they brought in CAB ad hoc legal aid scheme, which allows people to apply for legal aid and the courts look at that application and assess it. Often people do not deserve legal aid and are not provided with legal aid but often they are. The courts will look at their financial circumstances and will allow legal aid in that instance, particularly in circumstances where the family home is in jeopardy, and that seems to be the way the courts rule in relation to legal aid. There is a provision of legal aid and that is on the basis of equality of arms, so whatever legal counsel the bureau has, they will be provided with a legal counsel of the same level. If the bureau is provided with, or has a quantity surveyor or a forensic accountant, it is for them to apply for similar expertise. There is provision there for people to be able to represent themselves and gain the expertise that they require to defend the case.

The Senator mentioned receiverships and how they affect the property and the individuals who might be residing in that property, be they the respondents to the application or potentially family members. The courts will look at it so that they should be put in no better position than somebody who has failed to pay his or her mortgage. If somebody has funded the renovations or the purchase of his or her house through the sale of cocaine, for example, he or she should not be in a better position than people who simply cannot afford to pay their mortgage. The courts regularly dispossess people of their properties on account of them simply being unable to pay their mortgages and therefore, the way the courts look at it is that the person who has got that house, car or bank account on account of his or her criminal activity should not be in any better place. In that circumstance, they will make an order pursuant to section 3 and then they will appoint a receiver. Generally, as it is the person who holds my office who is appointed receiver in respect of it, I am quite well placed to discuss how that works. Generally, the courts will either appoint me as a receiver to manage the property - it might be to manage it with a view to preserving its value - or, more often than not, it will be to take possession of the property.

That could be land and buildings or a residential property but it could be a Ferrari as well. Generally, it is to sell that property and to hold onto the net proceeds of that sale, pending the final order, which is the section 4 order or the disposal order, where that moneys are generally returned to the Exchequer. I know there is the-----