David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014 represents a bold stride towards a police state. I oppose it. It authorises police misconduct, attacks the independence of the courts and doubles down on the war on drugs. Campbell Newman may have lost the Queensland election, but his spirit lives on in the hearts of the coalition and Labor, both of which support this bill.

I mentioned police misconduct. Let me explain. A regulation authorised the AFP to conduct certain types of searches, seizures, arrests and detentions at various airports prior to 19 March 2014. Another regulation authorised such conduct after 17 May 2014. In the period between these dates, the AFP was not authorised to conduct these searches, seizures, arrests and detentions. If AFP officers engaged in unauthorised searches, seizures, arrests and detention over this period, they did a disservice to the people they were meant to serve. They committed a crime and those who were searched, arrested or detained should have known that those crimes would be prosecuted. But that is not the view of the coalition or Labor.

Instead, they want this bill to retrospectively authorise any illegal searches, seizures, arrests and detentions over this period. This sweeps under the carpet any violations of property and liberty that occurred, robbing the victims of justice. It also sets a precedent for future retrospective authorisations. So instead of the AFP ensuring that they act within the law, this bill will encourage the AFP to not worry so much about the boundary between what conduct is and is not legal. If they step over the line, the major parties are willing to redraw the line and do so retrospectively.

I mentioned an attack on the independence of the courts. This bill introduces an offence for international firearms trafficking, an offence that already exists in the Customs Act. What is new is the penalty of a minimum five years imprisonment. Judges will no longer be able to calibrate penalties according to the individual circumstances of which they have the greatest awareness. All discretion will rest with police and prosecutors, as they decide whether the case should get to court. There is no history of lenient sentences for international firearms trafficking, so there is no case for this trampling on judicial independence, a hallmark of a fair and just society.

This bill also introduces a minimum five years imprisonment for the trafficking of firearms and firearms parts across state borders, in contravention of state firearms law. The new Commonwealth offence applies regardless of penalties and defences in state firearms law. This is an even more extreme trampling of the independence of the courts and the rights of the citizen, with a side-serving of undermining states' rights thrown in for good measure.

Finally, I mentioned that this bill doubles down on the war on drugs. It does so with such extreme overreach that everyday individuals and businesses will be cast as criminals unless the law is enforced by sensible public servants in all places and at all times. It does this by introducing an offence of importing a substance whose presentation implies that it is a lawful alternative to serious drugs. So, if you promote your harmless product by suggesting that taking it is as cool as dropping an ecstasy tablet, you have got a problem.

Further, the bill introduces an offence of importing a substance that causes a state of dependence. Does this cover a new version of Diet Coke or chewing gum? The bill introduces an offence of importing a substance that significantly changes motor function. Does this cover a new version of Red Bull or Dencorub?

The bill also introduces an offence of importing a substance that significantly changes thinking, behaviour, perception, awareness or mood. Does this cover a new copper cream to relieve the pain of arthritis or a new pheromone perfume? Does it cover a new drink that is as refreshing as a snowball in the face from a sexy person?

The bill bans substances that you smell, put on your skin, eat or drink. There is an exemption for substances that are already explicitly banned or allowed but only if nothing else is added and a defendant provides that an exemption applies. Nowhere in these provisions is the law limited to substances that cause harm. The concept of harm is completely absent from this law.

So rather than ban new substances that are shown to be or are likely to be harmful, the government is attempting to ban everything unless a bureaucrat has got around to providing an exemption. This approach could impose great uncertainty and stifle business innovation. If unreasonable bureaucrats do not like your harmless product the law is on their side, not yours. This approach also discourages bureaucrats from promptly assessing new substances. Overall, it represents the government kowtowing to the demands of lazy bureaucrats so, in the end, citizens serve the public service.

The coalition and Labor support this bill. They want to authorise police misconduct, attack the independence of the courts and double down on the war on drugs. The Liberal Democrats stand against this march towards a police state. After the next election it is my aim to ensure there are more Liberal Democrats to stand against this folly.