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

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

At the 2016 election, the coalition government made a commitment to the Australian people to implement tougher penalties for gun-related crime.

The criminal misuse and trafficking of firearms is a deadly crime and an ongoing threat to the safety of our communities.

Although there is no single group which dominates the sale and supply of guns in the illegal market, the illicit use and possession of firearms is a significant element of organised criminal activity in Australia.

Firearms are regularly used to commit acts of violence.

The imperishable nature of firearms and the ongoing supply of firearms to the illicit market mean they remain a serious threat to the Australian community.

Now, more than ever, we must do everything in our power to ensure the ongoing safety and security of all Australians.

The government amendments to this bill would introduce a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for offenders convicted of trafficking firearms or firearms parts under the Criminal Code Act 1995.

Mandatory minimum sentences send a strong and clear message that gun-related crime and violence will not be tolerated.

The mandatory minimums will capture all offenders who engage in the illicit firearms trade, not just those who trade in 50 firearms or parts.

These mandatory minimum sentences are not without safeguards. They do not include specified non-parole periods and they also allow a discount for offenders who plead guilty or who cooperate with law enforcement agencies.

Increasing the maximum penalties, including life imprisonment for the aggravated offences, does not guarantee the judiciary will impose an appropriate minimum sentence.

Unless a mandatory minimum sentence is introduced, it will remain possible for low sentences to be issued to offenders.

When this bill was debated in the other place last year, the government—in good faith—supported amendments related to increased sentences for firearms trafficking. This was obviously in line with our election commitment.

But again, unless there is a mandatory minimum sentence, it is possible for low sentences to be given to offenders who engage in this terrible crime.

So we call on members to support this important measure to send the strongest possible signal that we want to crack down on people who smuggle in guns.

This bill is just one of the measures that the government has taken to address the serious problems arising from illegal firearms.

For example, we recently oversaw the enormous success of the National Firearms Amnesty—which has seen more than 51,000 guns surrendered. This was an outstanding result, and shows how important this initiative was in reducing unregistered firearms from our streets. This was the first national amnesty since the 1996 Port Arthur buyback.

In addition, the government has invested $116 million in the National Anti-Gangs Squad, with strike teams now in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia and liaison officers in Tasmania, the Northern Territory and here in the ACT. Since the introduction of the squads in 2013, more than 5,700 illegal guns and gun parts have been seized.

The government is also investing an additional $25.4 million over three years to enhance the Australian Federal Police's capacity to detect and seize illegal guns by expanding the National Forensic Rapid Lab to crack down on the illegal firearms market.

This government is determined to tackle illegal firearms and making the Australian community safer.

This bill introduces amendments to reflect the seriousness with which this government is addressing criminal activity and the gravity of firearms offences.

The combination of mandatory minimum penalties and increased maximum penalties sends a strong message that the illegal trafficking of guns will not be tolerated.

These measures will be a strong deterrent against people seeking to illegally import firearms and their parts into Australia, with all the harm we know that illegal trade in guns can do.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017, and I have been waiting about eight months now to do so. What the minister failed to mention in his remarks is that this bill was amended and adopted by the Senate in February. That's eight months for which this country could have had tougher, stronger, better gun laws, supported by almost every single political party represented in this country, and yet, due to the bloody-mindedness of the minister on the other side of the table, who has rudely walked out for this contribution to the debate, we've not had those laws in place. It's not because of the detailed amendments to this bill that the government is moving. I have the amendments in my hand here. They're two pages long. They could have been lodged many, many months ago. But how can the government come into this chamber and talk about how seriously it takes strong gun laws when, for eight months, it has had bipartisan support to do something about this?

I've written to the minister multiple times. I wrote to him first in May to ask why there was this ridiculously lengthy delay in bringing these forward. I wrote to him again in October, after the minister, in a disgraceful act, I must say, chose to politicise the tragic shooting in Las Vegas. I did not do that, but I did write to the minister to ask why, if he was so concerned about gun violence in Australia, he had not brought this bill back into the parliament.

Everyone in this chamber, everyone in this House, everyone who works in this building, should know that, for eight months, this country could have had tougher, stronger gun laws—gun laws that had bipartisan support—but, because the minister didn't want to be ashamed to have to come into this chamber and support what is essentially a Labor-written bill, we have not had those laws in place. Such is the height that politics takes over good public policy with the minister who operates on the other side of the chamber.

The opposition will be supporting the bill as amended by the Senate, and I say that this is essentially a Labor bill because we took a piece of political legislation—a piece of legislation that was written only because the minister believed that Labor would not support it—and we amended it. We made it tougher. We made it stronger. We put in place life sentences for serious gun traffickers. We supported the Nick Xenophon Team in the other place, who also sought to strengthen the bill. Those are amendments that the government backed. Now what we have before us is essentially a very good law. It's a good law that has support right across the parliament. I am very concerned, though, to see the minister move amendments—amendments that have already essentially been rejected by the Senate. Here he is playing petty politics with gun safety again. He's moving amendments to this bill that he thinks Labor will reject, so they're going to go back to the Senate, where the Senate will reject them again. This is pathetic.

I believe we do have problems with gun violence in this country. I want our community to be safer. I want to get more guns off our streets. I want people who seriously traffic in guns to go to jail, and, if a court deems it necessary, to go to jail for life. Yet the minister stands in the path of those reforms because he wants to play little boy political games in this parliament. And I think that is absolutely disgraceful.

There are 600,000 illegal weapons in the illicit market in this country at the moment. Ten thousand of these weapons are handguns. They are the weapon of choice for gangs and criminals. We do need tougher sentences for gun traffickers. That's why Labor worked with the crossbenchers in the Senate to create a bill that ultimately the government supported.

We first proposed amendments that are similar to those that form the basis of the bill supported by the Senate in 2012. There were mass trafficking incidents in 2012 that we did not believe were being appropriately dealt with by the courts. In recent years, and five years on from that problem, the problem remains. Law enforcement recently intercepted a consignment from the United States of six fully automatic assault rifles and 96 semi-automatic handgun frames bound for Australia. These are incredibly serious crimes. One of the comments that I always get from law enforcement on this very important problem is that the issue with guns is that, once a gun is in the country, it's essentially here, as a tool that can be used for crime, indefinitely, because guns last for a very, very long time.

Last year, an alarming 3,542 firearms were stolen from legal gun owners and entered the illicit firearms market. That is 633 more illicit guns flooding into that firearms market than the previous year. In the home state of the Minister for Justice, Western Australia, the number of firearm weapons stolen in the space of a year doubled. What we are concerned about is these guns falling into the wrong hands. We need our law enforcement and our prosecutors to be able to pursue more serious charges for the most egregious type of firearms trafficking, such as the examples I have mentioned.

This is a tough bill that Labor amended in the Senate to contain life sentences for the very worst kinds of firearms traffickers. When the government introduced this bill in the Senate it contained mandatory minimum sentences. It was a flimsy piece of law. It was mandatory minimums and not a lot more. I talked about how we worked with the crossbenchers. It was very hard in the Senate to take this piece of petty politicking and create a bill that actually works. That is the bill that has been sent back to this chamber from the Senate and that we will be supporting. We want tougher penalties for gun smugglers, so we proposed sweeping amendments that were supported by the government. The aggravated offences will ensure that the worst traffickers can be sent to jail for life. Those aggravated offences apply to the trafficking of more than 50 firearms, firearms parts or a combination of firearms and firearms parts within Australia in a six-month period or the trafficking of more than 50 firearms, firearms parts or a combination of firearms and firearms parts into and out of Australia in a six-month period. Both of those offences will attract a maximum of life imprisonment or 7,500 penalty units or both. We selected those penalties because those are the penalties that apply to the trafficking of controlled drugs and the importing and exporting of commercial quantities of border control drugs or plants under divisions 302 and 307 of the Criminal Code. The number of firearms or firearms parts for these aggravated offences which Labor put into this bill in the Senate is to be calculated over a six-month period. This is quite specifically aimed at capturing a process where criminals structure their trafficking arrangements to avoid detection by sending small consignments on a regular basis. These measures were previously proposed by Labor in 2012. They passed the House of Representatives in 2012 with the support of the coalition. In opposition we put them into the Senate and they passed again with the support of the coalition. That is the part of the bill that Labor will be supporting.

I have talked a bit about the letters I have written to the minister. I will say again how frustrating it is for those of us in this chamber who are trying to get a good policy outcome, and to create laws that will better protect the Australian community, to see silly politics being played, especially with a matter that is as important as national security. I said that I wrote to the minister. I've written to him twice about this. It is good that, after those long eight months I've been waiting to make this speech on the second reading, the bill has come back to us here.

The coalition has two choices. It can pass the bill as it is, as it was agreed to by the Senate. In fact, we could have a vote in the parliament this evening to accept that this becomes a new law—we could make this happen today. Or we could do what it appears the government is choosing to do, which is play a ridiculous political game with gun violence and gun safety by moving amendments that it thinks that Labor and the crossbenchers will not support. I mean, please: this is absolutely just pathetic.

The minister keeps coming back to his obsession with Labor. It's not Labor. A wide range of crossbenchers in the Senate took out of this bill the aspect that doesn't work, the mandatory minimums. That was done as a joint approach in the Senate. Sometimes people say that Labor's stance on mandatory minimums comes down to principle. I want to talk about something that's got not much to do with principle, and that is what works for law enforcement. My main aim as a shadow minister for justice is to create a safer community for Australians.

Now, mandatory minimums do not make us safer. In fact, there is good evidence that mandatory minimums will increase danger in the Australian community. They will do this for a few reasons. The first reason is that we have very good evidence that juries are less likely to convict the perpetrator of a crime if mandatory minimums are in place, because juries believe in the judicial process. If they know that a judge is not going to have any control over the sentence that's given to a perpetrator, they are less likely to convict that person of a crime. What that means is more gun runners on the street. I don't want gun runners on the street; I want them in jail.

We know that law enforcement officers tend to hate mandatory minimums, and the reason they do that is because mandatory minimums mean that perpetrators do not cooperate with police to bring down the kingpins and the organised crime bosses who operate these networks. We know that people who are running this sort of criminal organisation will get the junior people in the organisation to do the work that's involved in committing a crime. They are often the people who are apprehended. We need those people to cooperate with police if we want to make a serious dent in crime in this country. I'm not going to stand in this parliament and vote for a bill which is going to reduce the incentive for people to cooperate with police, as we want them to do.

A final point that I want to make about mandatory minimums is that there are unintended consequences. There's actually very good reasons why we want judges to have discretion when it comes to determining sentences. The Law Council of Australia have called repeatedly on the government to try to work with Labor to make the Australian community safer by taking the mandatory minimums out of this bill. The Law Council of Australia in fact provided some very interesting examples of what they thought were unintended consequences of the mandatory minimums that the government is now moving as amendments to this bill. I will share one of those examples, and no doubt we will get right into the detail of this as the debate continues. The example from the Law Council of Australia is as follows: a farmer who has never been overseas before goes to the US and attends a gun show. He finds a gun part that he thinks will be helpful to use when he is controlling pests back on the farm. He buys one for himself and one for his mate down the road that he intends to sell to him. He gets caught returning to Australia when he is going through Customs. He is honest with the officer and tells him that he intends to sell one of the parts to his friend. That will satisfy the elements of trafficking that are contained in this bill and he will be looking at a five-year sentence in jail. The judge will have no choice but to jail him.

This is not my view; I didn't dream this up in my office. And it's not the view of the crossbenchers who voted down the mandatory minimums in this bill in the Senate; it is the view of the Law Council of Australia, a group of eminent people who make it their business to try to create a safer community and good public policy for our country. There are other examples that have been put forward, including one where the Law Council of Australia believes that Simon Overland, the decorated Victorian police commissioner, may have put himself foul of this bill. Under the mandatory minimums that are being proposed by the government, he could face a mandatory five-year jail term.

So we don't support the mandatory minimums in this bill. We don't support them because they won't make the community safer. Juries will not convict people; they are less likely to convict people who face mandatory minimums. We want people to cooperate with law enforcement, especially in an area like this, which is so much within the purview of organised criminals in this country. And we won't do it because we don't want innocent people, or people who have committed a crime that clearly doesn't line up with a five-year jail term to end up in jail. And it has a bigger consequence than the things I've just talked about: it risks undermining the justice system. When Australians who trust us to make good laws for them see arbitrary consequences from laws, they don't have faith in this parliament to do its job correctly, and that's something I cannot support.

So the Liberals and the coalition on the other side of the House have two choices. They can vote for the bill that was sent back from the Senate: a good piece of law, a law that was mainly written by Labor but with the assistance of some amendments made by crossbenchers up in the Senate. It's a good law that will make the community safer. In fact, it's a good law that could have been in place since February. It's a good law that the government voted for.

We could have this law in place tonight in this parliament, but instead what do we see? The justice minister comes in and tries to play politics once again. What is he trying to achieve? If he thinks he's going to win this debate by preventing this from becoming Australian law tonight, by sending back to the Senate a bill he knows the Senate will not agree to, then he is making a mockery of his position and he is showing himself to be the petty politician that he is. I wouldn't bother appealing to the justice minister on this because I think we all know his politics. We understand that, and we saw his silly performances in question time.

There are good people on the other side of this parliament. One of them is the member for La Trobe, who served in law enforcement, and I greatly respect the work he has done to try to protect our community. I want him and the other people on the other side of the House who care about good public policy to understand the choice that the leaders of their party are making for them. They can choose a law that could be in place tonight, providing better protection for the Australian community, providing better laws to prosecute people who are running guns or who are helping organised criminals in this country, or they can play the petty politics.

There are Australians who feel that this chamber is not serving them appropriately. There are people who feel that they are losing faith in the political process because we create these ridiculous stalemates without really seeking an outcome. We need to prove those people wrong. We need to show them that this chamber can cooperate. If we're ever going to cooperate, it's going to be on this bill, as amended by the Senate, which has bipartisan support. The only thing standing between this becoming Australian law—a good law—is the petty politics of the justice minister.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to pick up the shadow minister on a few points. I and my colleague beside me—the member for Wide Bay, a former police officer—have had a lot to do with juries. In my time I found that when they dealt with firearms offences they were pretty tough. I've got no doubt if they heard the evidence that someone was trafficking firearms and they were aware that the person could get a minimum sentence of five years for trafficking, they would go along and give a guilty verdict and convict that person. The shadow minister also raised points about former Chief Commissioner Simon Overland, who I believe did take some ammunition through security. In this legislation, by my understanding, it's trafficking if you have at least 50 items or 50 firearms. So, in my belief, that example would not apply.

Can I also advise the shadow minister and the Labor Party that when you actually have very strong sentencing, in the criminal world the message goes around pretty quickly. It will go around pretty quickly that no longer should you try to bring firearms into Australia. That's why I do support this. I know the shadow minister, with her best intentions, is trying to make a point, but I say to her that, from my experience of dealing with law enforcement and police officers, they are absolutely sick and tired of having firearms on the streets. So, yes, this is a very tough approach from the Minister for Justice, but he's trying to make the point that we need to get firearms off the streets.

I'll go back in time. Through the 1980s and 1990s, we saw an increase in gun violence in Australia. There was the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre in Melbourne, in my home state of Victoria. There was the Milperra massacre between outlaw motorcycle gangs. Of course, no-one should ever forget the Port Arthur massacre, a moment in 1996 that will be forever ingrained into our nation's memory for the saddest of reasons: 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. The gunman opened fire on tourists with two semiautomatic rifles. Australians were collectively horrified, and so came John Howard's National Firearms Agreement and the gun buyback scheme. Let's compare this with the US, where there have been 91 mass shootings in the past 35 years, and most of the killers got their guns legally. Most recently we saw the terrible scenes in Las Vegas, with at least 59 people dead and at least 527 people injured. That's horrific. Of course, there are many reasons terrible scenes like this occur, but one very clear thing we can point to in this case is lax gun laws.

In Australia we have always prided ourselves on a tough stance towards firearms, at least in the last two decades. While we have some of the strongest firearm laws in the world, there is no place for complacency. We need to make sure we don't let up or sleep on this issue. This government has a strong record of tackling gun-related crime, including introducing legislation for mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking, something the federal Labor Party continues to oppose. Since coming to government, we have taken decisive action by investing $88 million to boost inspections at our borders, establishing the National Anti-Gangs Squad—and I put that policy together, and I congratulate Minister Michael Keenan for the way it's been implemented—unlocking the proceeds of crime accounts, establishing the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and cracking down on legal loopholes which allowed criminals trafficking firearm parts to escape prosecution. What criminals try to do, rather than move an entire firearm, is bring in the pieces, and that's something this government is tackling. We have also committed $25.4 million to boost the AFP's capacity to detect and seize illegal firearms by expanding the national forensic rapid lab.

The Labor Party want to water down the bill by opposing the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal firearm trafficking. The Labor Party don't want to get tough on gang criminals; it's all talk. The Labor Party can't decide what they want either. They proposed mandatory minimum sentences for people-smuggling offences in 2010, yet now they say they're against them in principle. Bill Shorten wanted gun runners to face life in jail earlier this month, yet they seek to amend this bill to remove mandatory minimum sentencing. Which is it for Labor? Do you support illegal gun runners or do you not?

Regardless of Labor's indecision on this matter, we as a government need to move forward and make decisive moves to demonstrate that, just as we were in 1996, Australia is resolute in its attitudes towards safe, controlled gun ownership. The bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to put in place, in division 360, aggravated offences of trafficking 50 or more firearms or firearm parts within a six-month period within Australia—that is 50 parts, not just one bullet, as said by the shadow minister—and, in division 361, trafficking 50 or more firearms or firearm parts within a six-month period into or out of Australia. A maximum penalty of life in prison or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both, will apply to those offences. The bill will increase the maximum penalty for base offences of trafficking fewer than 50 firearms or firearm parts from 20 years imprisonment to 30 years imprisonment.

The mandatory minimum sentences will apply to trafficking firearms and firearm parts within Australia, in division 360 of the Criminal Code, and trafficking firearms and firearm parts into and out of Australia, in division 361 of the Criminal Code. The amendments also allow a court to discount the mandatory minimum sentence if the offender pleads guilty to the offence and cooperates with law enforcement agents. So, if they plead guilty and also cooperate with law enforcement—potentially giving up the Mr Bigs, as the Labor Party mentioned—that is a safeguard in there. The mandatory minimum sentences reflect the serious nature and potential consequences of supplying firearms and firearm parts to the illicit market.

In addition, the introduction of mandatory minimum offences of five years imprisonment for these firearms-trafficking offences means that we're delivering on our election commitment to the Australian people, who want us to keep our commitments. We promised that we would keep illegal guns off the streets in our election policy to keep communities safe, released on 26 June 2016. This policy was given a mandate by the people during the 2016 election, and the Labor Party need to stop standing in the way.

These offences ensure that firearms traffickers can be held responsible for the consequences of supplying firearms into the illicit market from both domestic and international sources. The aggravated offences and increased maximum penalties aim to more accurately reflect the serious nature and potential consequences of supplying firearms and firearms parts to the illegal market. The government believes mandatory minimum sentences are necessary and will act as a strong deterrent—I will say that again: a strong deterrent—for those who would otherwise engage in illicit firearms trafficking. Don't go soft on gun control, Labor. We have a strong history of fine gun laws in Australia. Don't be the group of people who stand in the way of continuing that tradition.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Around 800 firearms and related items, including pistols and machine-guns, were recently surrendered by Canberrans to the Australian Federal Police during the National Firearms Amnesty. Among the firearms that were given to the police was a German ME8 maxim machine-gun, captured by the Australian Light Horse in 1918. We will be commemorating the great work of the Australian Light Horse next week at Beersheba. The German machine-gun was captured by the Australian Light Horse in 1918 and was shipped back to Australia. Before the establishment of the Australian War Records Section in May 1917, the collection of war trophies and relics by Australian units was carried out in accordance with British War Office regulations. The British War Office established a committee to deal with the disposal of trophies and relics. It stated that the best trophies would be selected for a British national war museum. Why doesn't that surprise us colonials? The rest of the trophies would then be distributed among other countries. There was a resistance to this from Australia and, by the end of 1917, the Australian War Records Section controlled the administration of all war trophies captured by Australian units. Those trophies fell into two categories. The first consisted of large trophies, such as artillery pieces, machine-guns and vehicles, which required little protection from the rain. The second group consisted of smaller trophies like daggers, bombs and ammunition.

It wasn't until July 1919 that the Australian War Museum Committee decided a selection of relics and trophies would go on display at the Australian War Museum, now the Australian War Memorial, just over the lake, and the remainder would be divided amongst the states, with a state trophy committee established to administer the relics and trophies across Australia. These committees included one member of the House of Representatives, one Australian Imperial Force officer, one senator, one state government museum representative and the director of the Australian War Museum. The distribution system chosen by all the states was according to the size of the population and the size of the town. For example, towns other than a capital city with a population above 10,000—people would have heard this on ABC Radio the other day—were allocated two artillery pieces and two machine-guns. Towns with a population between 3,000 and 10,000 were allocated an artillery piece, and so on.

That brings me back to the German ME8 maxim machine-gun. As the story goes, the machine-gun was gifted to a town in Victoria and, not long after that, it went missing. After so many years, it has finally been handed in during the gun amnesty here in Canberra. The Australian Federal Police has since donated the machine-gun to the Australian War Memorial. So, in a way, we have a connection going right back to the War Museum, the commemoration of Beersheba and the connection with the Australian Light Horse.

The amnesty this year was the first since the Howard government amnesty that followed the absolutely horrific massacre at Port Arthur, which really shocked Australia to its core. With 50,000 guns handed in across Australia, we still have a long way to go before we truly rid our communities of illegal firearms. There is still a long way to go, but at least Australia again participated in the latest amnesty and we're getting these wonderful stories and these wonderful relics from our history showing up as part of the process. Most importantly, we are getting rid of guns from our communities.

The violence that's happening in my community—and we're talking about 10 to 15 minutes down the road from Parliament House—means that I can say, yes, I do support tougher penalties for firearms trafficking. This year, suburbs in the south of Canberra have been subject to a spate of incidents involving guns. A lot of people who are listening to this broadcast tonight would consider Canberra to be nirvana—it is paradise—but we have pockets of disadvantage and we have incidents of violence. We've had a number of incidents in recent history involving guns. In July, a car was set on fire before shots were fired into a home in Kambah and, less than a week later, police confirmed that 27 shots from a high-powered rifle were fired into a Waramanga house. And just last Tuesday a man was shot in the groin and shoulder—his young family were terrified—and two cars were set alight in the front yard of his Fisher home, in Canberra's south, as part of a targeted attack. This Fisher story, the Kambah story and the Waramanga story are of great concern. These incidents come up again and again at my coffee catch-ups and mobile offices, and I've had a number of emails on it. Canberrans are very concerned about these gun attacks. With this latest one, just a week or so ago at a Fisher home, two young children were at home at the time. It is a great concern.

It is because of incidents like these that Labor supports tougher penalties for firearms trafficking. The difference between the government and Labor isn't so great, but where we do differ is in how we would achieve that goal. We won't support ineffective measures. If we are going to be tough on firearms trafficking then let's introduce maximum penalties not mandatory minimum sentences. I call on the government to consider the amendments proposed by Labor to this bill. In its current form the bill only serves a political outcome. It helps the government fulfil a 2016 campaign commitment—it ticks that box—but the government has had mandatory minimum sentences as a pillar of its crime prevention policy since 2013. And since 2013 any attempt for mandatory minimum sentences to be applied in legislation has failed. The government has tried to get its mandatory minimum sentences through parliament not once but twice and they have been rejected not once but twice. So I'm wondering why the government seems to think that the third time will be the charm. Why is it trying again? What has changed? Is it because the government lost control on guns and now needs to appear tougher than it really is?

Under the government's watch, a record number of weapons have flooded the illicit market. Right now, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that there are more than 260,000 firearms in the illicit firearms market and possibly as many as 600,000. They estimate that 10,000 of these are handguns. We saw 50,000 guns handed in in the most recent gun amnesty, but that's just a drop in the bucket when we're looking at 260,000 firearms in the illicit market and possibly as many as 600,000. It is estimated that 10,000 of those are handguns. There were 50,000 guns handed in, some of them with a really rich and interesting history. That's just a drop in the bucket.

In the past year, we've also seen savage cuts to the Australian Federal Police abroad. Today's question time was less than pleasant in a range of ways. We heard the member for Hotham, the shadow minister for justice, talking about the fact that the AFP had admitted during Senate estimates that cuts had been made and that had affected its ability to perform its operations, particularly in relation to illicit drugs. As I said, question time today was very unfortunate. The allegations that were made against Labor were absolutely appalling, incredibly low. Hopefully, we won't see a repeat of that tomorrow. As I mentioned, in question time we heard today about the cuts to the AFP here in Australia and also abroad. There have been reports indicating that the number of AFP officers overseas has dropped by 63 per cent in the last year, which is a significant number.

We know that organised crime groups operate within our region, so at a time when we should be tackling these threats and ensuring that we have the resources to do so, we're seeing more cuts by this government. The government is too divided on the issue of guns to take any meaningful action. That is the nub of the problem here. The Adler shotgun proved to be a hugely contentious issue for the government, to the extent that it caused the Nationals to split from the Liberals on the floor of the Senate. We saw Liberals come out in favour of weaker gun laws, in complete contradiction to the strong gun laws that former Prime Minister John Howard put in place and of which he was so proud.

The thing that was so extraordinary about Howard at the time was the fact that he showed leadership. There was a very strong reaction amongst some sectors of the community—the gun lobby, farmers and others—who were opposed to what John Howard, the former Prime Minister, was doing, and yet he showed leadership, knowing that what he was doing was the right thing

Since then, we've had this third attempt by the coalition to pass mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking. But things haven't changed so much since the last time these sentences were considered and the last time these sentences were opposed in this place. Some of the reasons why mandatory minimum sentencing continues to be opposed are that it contravenes the doctrine of the separation of powers and that it also steps on the toes of the judiciary, whose job it is to determine appropriate sentencing and penalties. Despite what the member for La Trobe says, there's little evidence that mandatory sentences actually act as a deterrent to crime. They can lead to unjust or unnecessarily harsh sentences. It's inconsistent with Australia's human rights obligations in the areas of arbitrary detention and the ability of someone to appeal sentences. And, interestingly, the proposal to introduce mandatory minimum sentences goes against the government's own advice set out in its Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers.

Given all of these reasons, and the fact that parliament has already considered and rejected the proposal for mandatory minimum sentences not once but twice, the government has still failed to make its case, as it does so often, for the third assessment of this bill. It hasn't even been able to justify the need for these provisions. The government needs to amend this bill to remove the provisions in schedule 1 relating to mandatory minimum sentences.

Removing the mandatory minimum sentences provision does not mean that Labor is soft on gun crime: quite the opposite! Labor supports the proposal in this bill to increase the maximum penalty of imprisonment to 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units. In addition to this, Labor is proposing further amendments to introduce two new aggravated offences related to firearms trafficking. They are aggravated offences for dealing in 50 or more firearms and firearms parts in a six-month period, and aggravated offences for importing or exporting 50 or more firearms and firearm parts during a six-month period. Both of the new offences attract a maximum penalty of lifetime imprisonment or 7½ thousand penalty units or both. Labor's amendments would make the maximum penalty for trafficking in firearms the same as the maximum penalty for trafficking in drugs. It sends a very strong message, stronger than mandatory minimum sentences, that trafficking large numbers of illegal firearms is just as dangerous as trafficking large quantities of drugs and that the same maximum penalties should apply.

Labor first introduced the aggravated offences in 2012 in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The measures passed the House with the support of the then Liberal opposition but lapsed at the end of the parliament. The proposals in this bill only contain maximum sentences of 20 years. With Labor's amendments, prosecutors could pursue tougher penalties for the worst forms of firearms trafficking. The proposals in this bill are ineffective measures to distract from the fact that the government is weak and divided on the issue of gun control. Labor is proposing tough measures to create new aggravated offences with the strongest penalty available: life imprisonment. Only Labor can be trusted to protect Australia's world-leading gun laws.

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017, which is currently before the House. I'm proud that I have served as a former director of the Law Council of Australia. I'm proud to have served as a President of the Law Society of Tasmania. I'm also proud to stand against the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties as a question of principle.

There is no doubt in my mind that this government has lost any sense of principle. It's operating purely on politics at present, which is evidenced by the disgraceful attack today in connection with the legislation concerning mandatory sentencing of child sex offenders. These are very serious issues. As was very eloquently indicated by the member for Watson, these serious matters should not be used in order to drag down the dignity and responsibility of this parliament. When you're dealing with important issues of principle—like national security, paedophilia and questions of the safety of our public—we should stand on principle, and we shouldn't get down into the gutter. We shouldn't be dealing with the political aspects of these matters, but this government, I'm afraid, is all about politics at present. It is under pressure, and it is trying to search for distractions. In its search for distractions, it is lashing out across areas of policy, and it's now rested on this legislation, which has been around for quite some time. Indeed, an earlier version of this bill was introduced into the 44th Parliament, and the bill was passed by the House of Representatives but had not been passed by the Senate when the parliament was dissolved on 9 May 2016.

The bill operates to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to increase maximum penalties and to introduce mandatory minimum penalties for firearms-trafficking offences. As I indicated earlier, Labor does not support the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences in the context of this legislation. I, as a former President of the Law Society of Tasmania and having served on the Law Council of Australia, cannot support this legislation whilst it contains mandatory minimum sentences. Labor, in a principled way, supports the increase of maximum penalties, as this sends an appropriate message as to community concern surrounding firearms trafficking and, indeed, all serious firearms offences. There are existing offences and penalties for firearm trafficking, particularly with respect to cross-border firearms trafficking—that is, between one Australian state or territory and another. There is a further offence with respect to international firearms trafficking. This applies to trafficking prohibited firearms or firearms parts in or out of Australia. The two offences—that is, international and cross-border firearms trafficking—have the same maximum penalties.

In addition to the lapsed bill, there have been prior attempts by this government to legislate mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for firearms-trafficking offences. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014 and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 were introduced, and they included amendments to maximum penalties. Both bills became law, but only after amendments in the Senate removed the provisions that would have introduced mandatory minimum sentences.

An earlier version of this bill has received consideration by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The majority made no recommendation in relation to mandatory sentencing provisions but requested that the government:

The dissenting report of the Labor senators maintained the ALP position that the 'introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking should be avoided'. The Labor senators indicated:

… that effective deterrence is achieved by increasing penalties applicable to the most serious firearms offenders, rather than by imposing prison terms on the least serious offenders.

They added:

Increasing maximum penalties for firearms trafficking reflects community concern about the consequences of serious firearms offences, and [there is] the regime of penalties proposed by Labor when it was in Government. It [sends] a strong message to serious criminals about the consequences of firearms trafficking.

The explanatory memorandum offers no evidence to support the idea that mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking will enhance or sustain Australia's firearms control regime by deterring potential offenders.

Finally, the Labor senators noted:

… that there is evidence suggesting that imposing mandatory minimum penalties in fact has the opposite effect.

Indeed, we heard about this issue at length in the recent address to this House in connection with child sex offenders. There is much evidence to suggest that juries will decline to convict where they know there's a mandatory minimum sentence to be imposed.

The Law Council of Australia has repeated the position it took in relation to the 2015 bill, which was to support increased maximum penalties and to oppose mandatory minimum sentences. The Law Council of Australia made a very comprehensive submission, as did the Australian Human Rights Commission. Both organisations, and others, oppose the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences.

It is important, indeed very important, to highlight the submissions made by the Law Council of Australia with respect to the 2015 bill. The Law Council expressed in strong terms, I might say in the strongest terms, its:

… unconditional opposition to mandatory sentencing as a penalty for any criminal offence on the basis that raises the potential for unintended consequences …

Those consequences, as detailed in the submission, include:

The contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Canberra, addressed that. They go on:

There is also the very important issue of the:

finally the Law Council indicated—

people we should be protecting, such as—

indigenous peoples, young adults, juveniles, persons with a mental illness or cognitive impairment and the impoverished.

The Law Council's submission also highlighted that the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking offences on the following basis. It said:

It was the experience in NSW when there were a number of people smuggling cases before the NSW Courts that the accused did not enter pleas of guilty because of the mandatory minimum sentence and all the trials ran the full course. This had a significant impact on the District Court to dispose of other work and on the resources of the [Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions] … Additionally trials with a mixture of Commonwealth and State offences by reason alone of the combined effect of State and Commonwealth provisions are more complex cases to prosecute. The inclusion of a mandatory minimum sentence in this mix will add to the overall complexity.

It's also important to note:

… the Tasmanian Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions noted that mandatory sentencing provisions 'can lead to unjust results' and that, if it is thought desirable to have some form of mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, then it should be drafted in such a way—

Debate interrupted.