Speech in Parliament: Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill
13/09/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:18): This is yet another bill from a government that wants to be seen as being tough on crime, but, unfortunately for the government, it would seem that coming up with a workable solution to crime is the only thing that is proving to be really tough. My concern about this bill is great, both in gravity and quantity, and it is worth noting that, as usual, I am not alone in being alarmed and angered by this government’s heavy-handed, reactive, rather than proactive, approach to crime, particularly drug-related offences.
I have received correspondence from the Law Society which outlines its objection to this bill for various reasons. I understand that the Liberal Party will also be opposing this bill on similar grounds.
My concerns with this bill are as follows. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly of all, the punishment proposed in this bill—that is, taking away an offender’s assets, such as property or cars—does not relate at all to the offence committed. I believe that there is a fine line between protecting and educating people and crushing them with overprotection, and I believe that there should only be room in this chamber and in this parliament for government to introduce consequences that relate as directly as possible to offences committed.
Our government is supposed to help the people of this state to grow, develop, progress and flourish. This government is not here to flex its muscles and do as it pleases with the power it has been given by the people it is supposed to serve. This measure is solely punitive and therefore is irresponsible and intolerable. As the Law Society itself suggests, if the government believes that the current punishments in place for this kind of crime are not sufficient, it should look at measures such as lengthening the gaol sentences pertaining to these offences instead of coming in in a blind rage striking every which way like a school bully in a sandpit.
The measures proposed under this bill are also, in my opinion, too highly variable. It is a tenet of the law that everyone should be treated equally, and the fact that some people could lose more assets than others as a consequence of the same crime severely undermines this fundamental principle. If our government wishes to uphold the basic principle that all people are deserving of the same rights and enjoyment in life, then logically it must be prepared to apply the necessary negative aspects of the law equally too.
Of course, this bill is also heavy-handed in the sense that it is not only those who have committed an offence under it who would be punished. The loss of a home, property or car could have serious impact on the offender’s immediate family for instance. Given the nature of the offence, family members, particularly children, may not even be aware that the offender was involved in drugs.
I can see the government coming back on this point and saying, ‘Well, what are you saying, that we can only dish out punishments that don’t affect anyone’s life in any way?’ Of course this is not what I am saying. Having a family member in gaol is obviously going to have very severe and tragic consequences for more than just the person serving time. At least, though, having a loved one in gaol does not mean families going without a car to get to work or school or, worse still, being left without a home to live in while dealing with the emotional anguish that is bound to be caused by this kind of situation.
I am in no way implying that lengthening the gaol term for offences committed under this act would be easy on individuals and families, but at least this form of punishment results in the least possible harm to those who have not actually done anything wrong. I reiterate my belief that punishments for crime should relate as strictly as possible to the offence itself and have minimal effect on those who have not committed the offence.
The law has two duties when it comes to offences such as this: punish the guilty responsibly and protect the innocent entirely. I believe that this bill subverts both of those duties, but, of course, the issues with the bill do not stop there. We also have a problem in that there is currently no right to appeal once a court has decided to confiscate an offender’s assets under legislation such as this. This not only compounds the effect that the confiscation of assets could have on an offender and their family but it also compounds the affront to law that this bill represents.
I would go on to suggest that this bill also has the potential to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and severely impede an offender’s rehabilitation. How is a person supposed to get away from the poverty and desperation a lifestyle involving drugs can often lead to if they do not have so much as a roof over their head? We must ask further: how does the government expect a child of such a person to have the best opportunity to benefit from life if they are disadvantaged through this confiscation system? It is just so terribly ill-conceived and offensive to the notion of social equity.
I am in no way condoning ‘the drug lifestyle’ but I do believe in the right to rehabilitation and I fear for the effect that not having access to the most basic tools for rehabilitation may have on a recovering person’s life. I fear that desperation may then lead them back into crime and start the cycle all over again, and while I do not condone this lifestyle, I do condone human rights for everyone and this bill is treating drug offenders like they are inhuman and do not have any rights at all, and this is a position I simply cannot support.
In short, this bill does not punish responsibly. It does not protect innocent people sufficiently, and for this reason it does not have my support. However, I am willing to consider some of the technical amendments to this bill which are being introduced by the Hon. Mr Stephen Wade, and for that reason I will allow it to go into committee.
