Garrett David: Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill Privacy Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Garrett David: Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill Privacy Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7274. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate the previous speaker Carol Beaumont who brought back the focus on to the other measures that the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill provides for which are contained in clause 15 “Sale of confiscated motor vehicles” and the disposition of the proceeds thereof. We heard an awful lot of excited rhetoric from Mr Cosgrove about the crushing provisions which I will come to myself as well. I am very pleased that Ms Beaumont pointed out that the remedy that is most likely to be applied is confiscation and sale of the vehicle either in whole or in part and of course that is sensible. The sale process has appeal for the reasons that many members have spoken of but there are also problems if the vehicle is sold as a whole because of the auction process that members on this side of the House are well familiar with if Mr Burns is not. 
I turn to the points made about crushing. The first point that needs to be emphasised is that this is very much a last resort; it is not the first. It involves the concept of deterrence and it is a very ancient concept. I think the French put it most elegantly—pour encourager les autres—but it goes back to Greek and Roman times. It basically says that someone shoots a deserter to discourage others to pick one unpleasant example. Or in this context to crush one car to discourage the 500 or 1000 others who are subject to it. 
Unlike Mr Cosgrove I do not believe that all criminals are stupid; I believe that most criminals are rational. We have all used the term boy racers even though it is somewhat benign. Boy racing is a rational offence. A person intending to go down Moorhouse Avenue or do endless circuits through Hagley Park needs to decide he or she is going to do it then go and fill up the car call or text the other clowns go to the appointed spot and carry out the activity. That is a series of rational steps made by that person or persons. It is not a murder committed in the heat of the moment and it is not a drugged assault or another kind of assault committed in the heat of the moment. It is a rational considered offence. 
Evidence shows that deterrence very much works in that area. It is one of the reasons why violent crime has decreased 60 percent in California since 1994 when the “three strikes” law was introduced. Contrary to popular belief it is not just because of incapacitation. A study cited in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill showed a 22 percent reduction in crime due to deterrence. 
I ask members to imagine in the context of this bill the impact of that first crushing. Let us say that the Minister or Mr Cosgrove for that matter are right and there are only 10 crushings a year. Mr Cosgrove has said and he appears to have plenty of knowledge of this field that a lot of those vehicles are worth 30 grand. Well 30 grand is a lot of money to me; I think the best of my two cars is worth about $5500. Imagine the impact that crushing a $30000 car will have if that is someone’s only asset. Hopefully some sensible judge and there are a good many of them will pick as a first example one of the cars that Mr Cosgrove referred to—a nice shiny thing. I do not know what the hoons think that would be—a Subaru Impreza or something hotted up lowered and given a nice paint job. Imagine the impact of crushing that car on the rest of the boy racers. It might not work; it might not deter everybody. It might take two crushings or five but I warrant that this will have an effect when crushing is reached eventually; it will have an effect. 
I could cite a very unpleasant case in South Auckland concerning deterrence but I will not for reasons of taste. The fact is that when it comes to rational offending which requires intention deliberation and steps deterrence has been shown to work and I believe it will work in this case. We are happy to support this bill but as I said earlier and I will repeat if it does not work we will be happy to support any amendment that closes any loophole that someone in my profession manages to find in the coming months or years. Thank you.