Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

I move these amendments to the bill following amendment in the Senate. I move these amendments to remove the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking in schedule (2) of the bill. The government agrees to these amendments today to ensure that other important measures contained within the bill are able to be enacted into law without further delay. We do so very reluctantly, and I want to make it clear that we are not abandoning our commitment to introduce minimum mandatory sentences of five years imprisonment for the trafficking of firearms and firearm parts and for illegally moving firearms or their parts across borders in Australia. So, while I move these amendments, I do so with a commitment to reintroduce these tough new measures at the next available opportunity.

The coalition went to the polls with a very clear objective: to detect and disrupt organised crime and criminal gangs and to do everything we can to undermine their business model. The Australian Crime Commission has estimated that the criminal economy in Australia is worth at least $15 billion. This money is often derived from the illicit drug trade, from money laundering and also from the trafficking of firearms. The Crime Commission further conservatively estimates that there are over 250,000 arms and 10,000 handguns in the illicit market. That is a quarter of a million long arms and 10,000 handguns within the illicit gun market in Australia.

We know that trafficking these firearms is a deadly crime, and even a small number of illegal firearms coming into Australia presents a very serious threat to Australian communities and the safety of our communities. That is why we made this commitment to the Australian people to implement tougher penalties for gun related crime. Mandatory minimum sentences send a strong message that gun related crime and violence is a serious threat to the safety of all Australians.

I am sorry to say, though, that Labor have chosen to oppose sending this strong message, and they have been very hypocritical in their arguments for doing so. The member for Bat Man, who is sitting at the table—or Batman, I should say; we do not want to see that guy in a black rubber suit—moved these amendments in the House. His rationale for doing so was that it:

… is laid out in the Australian Labor Party's national platform that it is the strongly-held view of my party that mandatory minimum sentencing is often discriminatory in practice … so we oppose mandatory sentencing …

Yet the history of the Labor Party in office shows that that is just not the case. Indeed, we have managed to unearth one of their election documents from 2010, where they brag about the effects of mandatory sentencing on people smuggling—although clearly they were slightly too early in lauding the effect of those measures, because of course that was in the midst of the most serious people smuggling crisis that this country has ever seen. Indeed, in their May 2010 policy, they actually talked about federal Labor introducing tough new people smuggling offences that included penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment and mandatory minimum terms of up to eight years. So the Labor Party say that they will not support mandatory minimum terms because it is apparently some long-held view of the Labor Party that they do not accept mandatory minimum terms, yet in their election documents they brag about doing so in relation to people smuggling. I think this is a very convenient shift in position from the Labor Party, and unfortunately it is going to prevent us from making Australian communities safer and more secure.

Under their stewardship we saw budgetary cuts to Customs of more than $700 million. We saw sea cargo inspections decreasing by 25 per cent and air cargo inspections decreased by 75 per cent. Since we have come to office, we have made a very tough and unyielding commitment to remedy the recklessness that the Labor Party brought to these sorts of issues, and we have put in a further $88 million commitment to reverse some of the cuts that Labor made in our screening processes to do all we can to keep Australia safe from illegal firearms coming in from overseas.

Any import of an illegal firearm should be of great concern to all Australians, and mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment are a key part of our pursuit of a strong and nationally consistent approach to gun crime. We know that illegal firearms are the weapon of choice for criminals to commit violent acts, and sadly we have been reminded of that in that dreadful siege in Martin Place. The report that was brought down by the head of PM&C and the head of the Premier's department has alluded to the vital importance of continuing to be very tough on gun crime in Australia.

I am very disappointed that we are forced to move these amendments, but the legislation that we are dealing with is too important to get held up on this issue. But I will take the next available opportunity to continue to press this parliament to introduce minimum mandatory sentences for gun smuggling crimes, and I do so because we on this side of the House seek to do absolutely everything we can to make the Australian community safer.

I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the subject of these amendments to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014. This is perhaps one of those occasions when Labor's amendments, unsuccessfully moved in the House but successfully moved in the Senate, may have saved the government from itself. Let me just respond to some of the remarks made by the minister.

By way of background, let us remember that this piece of legislation is not the product or fruit of the work of the government, whether in opposition, in their pronouncements in their election manifesto, or subsequently. This legislation is the fruit of the work of the previous Labor government. Time and time again, we have seen this minister come into this chamber and self-righteously move legislation in this place which, of course, was the legislation of the former Labor government. This is no exception. The only change of substance that the government made to the legislation, which had lapsed with the election being called and the end of the last parliament, was to introduce mandatory minimum sentencing. In every other respect, the bill represented the fruit of the previous government's work and the resolve of Labor to deal with the important questions dealt with by this bill.

To be absolutely clear, this is a bill that did and does strengthen this country's regime in terms of protecting ourselves against the smuggling and transportation of illegal firearms. That is something that both sides of this House are committed to, and I think it is generally well understood that laws and law-making in this national security and policing space are at their best when they are done in a sensible, rational and bipartisan way. That is the attitude we bring to the table when we discuss these matters.

That is why it is spectacularly unhelpful for the minister to announce only a few moments ago that these amendments 'prevent us' from making Australia more secure. That kind of nonsensical hyperbole does nothing for the government's credentials. If the government seeks to avoid any innuendo that it climbs into these issues for nothing more than short-term partisan gain then it would be well advised to steer clear of such over-the-top rhetoric.

Let us be absolutely clear: what we have done here is move and support a piece of legislation written by Labor in government that reflects Labor's position that we took to the last election and the work of the previous committee. In particular, with respect to mandatory sentencing—the one issue over which we have disagreed—that does not change or resile from the fact that we have strengthened penalties in this bill, and we have strengthened them very significantly. But the government's new-found enthusiasm for mandatory sentencing—the minister quoted the ALP platform to us, saying that this was the rationale for me originally moving the amendments in this House—of course is again nothing more than hyperbole. There are many rationales, one of them, of course, being that I think the government would be very well advised to have regard for its own handbook on the subject, a document produced by the Attorney-General's Department entitled A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers. At 3.1, that document states that minimum penalties should be avoided. This is because, inter alia, they interfere with judicial discretion to impose a penalty appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case. They may create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges even when there is little merit in doing so. They preclude the use of alternative sanctions such as community service orders that would otherwise be available in part IB of the Crimes Act 1914 and they may encourage the judiciary to look for technical grounds to avoid a restriction on sentencing discretion, leading to anomalous decisions.

These are issues of import; and so, while Labor has supported the strengthening of penalties in this bill, we have not supported mandatory minimum sentencing, because mandatory minimum sentencing may offer the minister a cheap talking point but does not improve or strengthen law, lawmaking or law supervision in this country.

Let's be very clear: in creating an incentive for a defendant to fight charges, one takes away from our policing and judicial authorities the opportunity to enter into important bargaining and plea bargaining negotiations with a potential criminal. That, of course, ultimately has the effect of weakening our capacity to investigate and go after the big fish in this very serious world of criminal activity.

We believe these amendments have strengthened the bill. This is a bill, as I said, Labor supports on the basis that we wrote it. We support it because we are proud of the fact that it strengthens this country's regime in fighting the scourge of illegal firearms and we are confident that, in strengthening the penalties found herein and avoiding the simple talking points that the government clings to around mandatory sentencing, we have actually made for better lawmaking in this county.

Question agreed to.