Below is the draft of my submission on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, which I'll be emailing away before Friday. It has been informed by posts here and here.
- I oppose the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and ask that it not be passed.
- The chief purpose of the bill is to allow the confiscation and destruction of vehicles as punishment for illegal street racing offences. According to the government’s own advice, there is no evidence that this measure will work, and no empirical case has been made for it. According to Treasury comment on the Cabinet paper approving the proposal, there was “no analysis, evident in the paper, that any of the measures proposed are likely to be effective in influencing behaviour and achieving the stated objectives”.
- Policy should be evidence-based. This is not. It seems to be aimed primarily at securing “tough on crime” headlines for the Minister. That is not a proper goal for public policy.
- Recommendation: the entire confiscation and destruction regime should be removed from the bill.
- As part of this goal, the bill allows the confiscation and destruction of vehicles from third parties as “punishment” for the crimes of others. It uses the Orwellian phrase “substitute for the offender” to refer to these third parties. A better term would be “scapegoat”.
- Such collective punishment is as absurd as it is immoral. It violates fundamental standards of justice and ignores completely the link between behaviour and punishment. If it was performed in time of war, it would be considered a war crime. This bill would impose it in time of peace.
- In addition to being collective punishment, this confiscation of third-party vehicles also constitutes punishment without trial. Under the bill, person A is tried, and as a consequence person B’s vehicle may be confiscated and destroyed. Person B has not been charged with any offence, let alone been tried, and has had no chance to defend themselves. While they have access to an appeals process, this is with a reverse onus of proof which stacks the legal deck against them. This would not be an appropriate process for a speeding ticket, let alone the confiscation of a vehicle potentially costing tens of thousands of dollars.
- Crown Law has argued that as this confiscation “[does] not involve any penalty other than the loss of the vehicle”, it is not a punishment, and as there is no trial, it does not constitute punishment without trial. I hope that the committee can see the absurdity of such arguments. As with impoundment under the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, it is performed by agents of the state, using the coercive power of the state, and inflicted explicitly for violation of the law (albeit by another). It is explicitly intended as a deterrent. These are all the hallmarks of a punishment, and it will be understood as such by those it is inflicted upon.
- Recommendation: if the confiscation regime is preserved, those sections allowing confiscation and destruction of vehicles owned by a “substitute for the offender” should be removed.
- I do not wish to make an oral submission to the Select Committee.
