Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2014.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:25): It will come as no surprise to members in this chamber that Family First is a strong supporter of this bill; and that is because we recognise the significant impact that drugs and drug offences have on our society. We have long been proponents of much harsher sentencing for people who make a living and profit from the misery that is the manufacturing and selling of illicit substances. Accordingly, Family First strongly supports the bill and the intention behind it.

Statistics on commercial drug offences released recently by the Office of Crime Statistics and Research shows that convictions for crimes such as those intended to be covered by this bill have increased, in some cases quite dramatically, in the last five years. For example, convictions for trafficking in a large commercial quantity (so, right at the top end of the scale) of a controlled drug have more than doubled between 2008-09 and 2012-13.

It is pleasing that there has been an increase in convictions. However, it is particularly concerning that many drug traffickers are receiving minimal sentences or minimal fines or even nothing at all for such serious drug offences. The current legislation for large commercial quantity of drug offences allows sentencing discretion for life imprisonment, a fine of $500,000 and/or both, yet the results of this commercial drug report indicate that no-one has ever come even remotely near to being sentenced to anything like this sort of penalty.

There are many contributing factors as to why someone enters into the criminal lifestyle, one of which undoubtedly is the lucrative lifestyle that the manufacturing of drugs can provide. Drug dealers notoriously have little or no consideration for those whom they sell their product to. The motivation is usually clear; that is, around the profitability that can come from successful sales versus the unlikely possibility of being caught. It has been speculated that there are more Ferrari and Lamborghini drivers who make their living from drug manufacturing than many other professions.

It stands to reason that drug crime will escalate if those involved in it are of the belief that they are unlikely to get caught or suffer any significant penalty from their involvement in this criminal enterprise. Family First believes it is important to send a clear message to those in the criminal lifestyle and those who may be considering a criminal lifestyle that in fact crime does not pay. We believe that this bill takes significant strides towards sending that message.

The confiscation of assets that can be clearly shown to have been unlawfully acquired or as the proceeds of crime is something that we wholeheartedly support. This bill, however, goes one step further by allowing assets that have been purchased 'lawfully' to also be confiscated, excluding those assets which a bankrupt would be allowed to keep under a normal situation. This deviation from the Western Australian model allows someone access to household necessities but no more. We believe that this is not only a smart but a fair move and commend the government for including this provision in the bill.

I previously made a similar statement to the chamber but I consider it worth repeating: there is every likelihood that high-end drug offenders making a living out of this trade have significantly accumulated wealth, not only from the offences of which they are being convicted but also from other offences that have not been detected. Additionally, any legal income (so-called legal income) would become mixed with that of the illegal enterprise, making it next to impossible to determine which assets have been purchased by legitimate and legal means and those which have not.

Family First does not believe these offenders should be given the benefit of the doubt in keeping assets as it is our belief that the source of those assets is ultimately from criminal activity. We know that it is common practice for high-end drug manufacturers and criminals involved in this sort of activity to use the proceeds of their crime to set up what might be termed legitimate businesses in order to launder the money. This bill gets around that problem.

Accordingly, we strongly believe in the principle of what the government is trying to achieve with this bill, and we look forward to the passage of any legislation that will send a strong message to the criminal element that drug crime simply will not be tolerated, it will not pay and it is not worth considering.

I also make mention that I have filed an amendment to this bill. I will explain it in more detail when I come to move it in committee, but essentially, as the government's bill stands, it seeks to classify a particular offender as a repeat drug offender and therefore qualify to have their assets removed if they are convicted at least three times in a 10-year period. We think that is not strong enough, and my amendment would seek to remove the 10-year requirement. If the amendment is successful, it would mean that, if a particular offender is convicted—and I stress the word 'convicted'—three times or more over any time period, then they would qualify as a repeat high-end drug offender and have their assets confiscated under this bill. We support the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:30): This is the third time I have spoken to this bill. On 15 September 2011, in opposing the bill, it took me 1,871 words, and I put a great deal of argument and material on the public record. The second time the Greens rose to oppose this bill was on 15 March 2012. It only took me 148 words to say that the bill was bad law. I will try to do better today.

This is bad law. It was bad law in 2011, bad in 2012 and it remains bad in 2014. The Law Society was right to strongly oppose this bill. The Law Society was right to call this bill unfair, unjust and unreasonable. The Greens continue to oppose this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

At 16:33 the council adjourned until Wednesday 2 July 2014 at 14:15.