Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we were last dealing with this bill, I was in continuation in relation to the opposition's second reading contribution. I was in the process of outlining the various measures incorporated within this bill. I will continue where I left off with respect to measures to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to increase penalties for failing to comply with a production order or with a notice to a financial institution in proceeds of crime investigations. The bill will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act to address ambiguity in the provisions, streamline the appointment of proceeds of crime examiners and support the administration of confiscated assets by the Official Trustee.

The bill will also give the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption of South Australia—ICAC SA—whose office became operational in September 2013, the ability to access information from Commonwealth agencies consistent with other state anti-corruption bodies, defences for certain Commonwealth telecommunications offences and the ability to apply for certain types of search warrants.

There are measures to update references to reflect the new name and titles associated with the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission consequential to the Crime and Misconduct Commission Amendment Act 2014 for Queensland coming into force. There are measures to clarify when a variation to controlled operations would require deputy commissioner or commissioner approval and to clarify that an authority for a controlled operation must not be varied if it would alter the criminal offences to which the controlled operation relates. There are measures to amend two paragraphs in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 for consistency with current Commonwealth drafting practices and to correct an amendment to the act made by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Classification Tools and Other Measures) Act 2014.

The bill also includes amendments to insert the concept of being 'knowingly concerned' in the commission of an offence as an additional form of secondary criminal liability in section 11.2 of the Criminal Code; and amendments to introduce mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for firearm trafficking.

While Labor supports the majority of measures in this bill, which will improve Commonwealth criminal-justice arrangements, we have serious concerns with some of the proposed amendments. In particular, Labor is concerned about the insertion of knowingly concerned as a secondary form of criminal liability and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm trafficking offences. We note the strong opposition held by peak law organisations with regard to these amendments and the lack of consultation that has occurred with respect to this bill.

Labor is concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the concept of knowingly concerned. We note the concerns raised by the Law Council of Australia in relation to how the provisions have been drafted and the dangers arising out of 'vaguely defined laws'. We believe that the introduction of such a vague and open-ended concept as knowingly concerned is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the rule of law:

… which requires that the Criminal Code should be precise enough to allow people to readily ascertain prohibited conduct …

The government has argued that the need has arisen to introduce the concept of knowingly concerned as a secondary form of liability into section 11.2 of the Criminal Code. The ability to effectively prosecute alleged offences against Commonwealth law remains the critical objective of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the CDPP. It is important that the director of pubic prosecutions has both the resources and powers to achieve this objective. However, I am not convinced that the provisions in schedule 5 of the bill support this objective. Labor notes the evidence provided by the Law Council of Australia, who strongly oppose the introduction of knowingly concerned. They state:

The proposal to introduce knowingly concerned as part of the law of complicity in the Criminal Code—making it applicable to all Commonwealth offences, offences numbering in the hundreds—is a radical change which has been proposed without apparent consultation with States and Territory jurisdictions and against a background of its rejection on three prior occasions in the Model Criminal Code process.

Not only has the government failed to engage with stakeholders with regard to these amendments but also it has failed to justify the need for an additional form of secondary criminal liability to apply to all offences in the Criminal Code.

The government has highlighted particular categories of offences where the concept of knowingly concerned is required, including drug and drug-importation offences and insider-trading offences. However, all of the offences identified have already been drafted in a way that address the concerns raised without the need to include 'knowingly concerned' in such a blanket way.

Labor believes that the proposed change in relation to the introduction of knowingly concerned is a major change to the Model Criminal Code. Leading up to the adoption of the Model Criminal Code in 1995, there was a long consultation. The consultation occupied some years and included some of Australia's leading criminal practitioners. There ought to be full consultation in relation to any proposed general change to the Model Criminal Code. No Australian state or territory, besides the ACT, has the offence of knowingly concerned nor does the United Kingdom. Introduction of a general offence in the Commonwealth Criminal Code could lead to confusion in trials where the accused are charged with both state and Commonwealth offences. Uniformity is important for drug law offences where the state and Commonwealth offences may well figure in the same trial.

Labor does not oppose the introduction of the element of knowingly concerned in relation to individual offences in appropriate cases. Indeed, this has already occurred in relation to a number of offences in Commonwealth legislation. As the Australian Human Rights Commission noted in its submission to the Senate committee, it is 'difficult to anticipate the impact of extending this form of liability to all offences'.

Labor cannot support schedule 5 in its current form. We urge the government to conduct a proper consultation process before proceeding with any change to the Model Criminal Code. We agree with the recommendation of the Law Council of Australia that where there is a need to extend criminal complicity the proposed amendments should be specific to that offence only.

With respect to mandatory minimum sentencing, once again, here, ideology triumphs over rational public policy in the Abbott government. The Abbott government has continued to accuse Labor of not putting up a fight-back against organised crime because of our successful amendments to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014, which removed mandatory minimum sentencing for the trafficking of firearms into Australia. But that is simply not the case.

In 2012, Labor introduced legislation that would have increased the maximum penalty for firearms trafficking to life imprisonment. That would have made it the same as the maximum penalty for drug trafficking.

Minister Keenan's proposal contains a watered-down penalty of 10 years. The government has yet to explain why it is doing this, other than to claim that it was an election commitment, with no justification. Minister Keenan's measures are also mostly symbolic, as they do not include specified non-parole periods.

There is little evidence that mandatory sentences work as a deterrent. In fact, the government's own department says that mandatory sentences may create an incentive for a defendant to fight charges, even where there is little merit in doing so.

We want tougher penalties on gun trafficking and the government has watered these down. Whilst Labor supports the government's intentions to protect the community from gun-related violence, we urge the Abbott government to adopt a similar sentencing regime in relation to the proposed firearms trafficking offences. This would send a strong message to serious criminals but avoid the issues associated with mandatory minimum sentences.

The Abbott government continues to not heed the advice of experts who understand the complexities and sensitivities of such cases. The Australian Labor Party maintains its position that the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of firearm trafficking offences should be avoided. We note that these provisions have already been considered and rejected by the parliament and that the government has failed to justify the need for such provisions.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee received evidence from a number of submitters who strongly opposed the introduction of these amendments. The Law Council of Australia referred to a number of unintended consequences of mandatory sentencing, which included 'undermining the community's confidence in the judiciary and the criminal justice system as a whole'.

The Australian Human Rights Commission noted that these amendments give rise to the potential for injustices to occur and 'run counter to the fundamental principle that punishment should fit the crime'.

We also note the concerns previously raised by state prosecutors, who believe that these provisions can lead to unjust results and impose a significant burden on the justice system.

Labor believes that the government has failed to explain the need for mandatory sentencing provisions. I, again, draw attention to the Attorney-General's Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, which specifically stipulates that minimum penalties should be avoided. These are the Attorney-General's own guidelines. I, again, reiterate this point, as we did the last time when this government presented these provisions: the Attorney-General's Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences specifically stipulates that minimum penalties should be avoided.

I also refer to evidence previously given by the Attorney-General's Department, where it stated that it was not aware of specific instances where sentences for the trafficking of firearms or firearm parts have been insufficient.

While we note that the Attorney-General has the power to direct the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to not prosecute an offender in certain circumstances, the government has given no indication that it would consider using this power when cases of injustice occur.

Furthermore, the Attorney-General can also revoke an order at any point. We note that the current Attorney-General has already revoked an order introduced by the previous Attorney-General in relation to people-smuggling offences.

I urge the government to replace the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking offences with increased penalty provisions, as set out in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill was introduced in November 2012 by the then Labor government and proposed the introduction of new aggravated offences for firearm dealing, which would attract a higher penalty of life imprisonment. These provisions would still send a strong message to serious criminals, while minimising the risk of a miscarriage of justice.

While Labor supports most of the provisions in this bill that improve criminal justice arrangements, we continue to have serious concerns about the implications of schedules 5 and 6 of the bill as they stand.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This is a large and complex bill. It amends 14 separate acts and contains 17 separate schedules of amendments. It raises serious concerns for the legal profession, state and territory prosecutors and, indeed, the Australian Greens.

These concerns stem from the fact that this bill undermines a number of established common law principles which have evolved to protect against unjustified or disproportionate intrusion into individual rights. It is also an example of an increasingly ad hoc approach to criminal law reform by the Commonwealth government that threatens the progression towards uniform criminal law across Australia. Having uniform criminal law in Australia is desirable because it makes it easier to understand, administer, prosecute and defend in criminal matters, no matter what geographical jurisdiction is involved. In addition, having uniform concepts or definitions also assists where a case may involve a mixture of federal and state or territory law.

As is very clear from the many debates we have been involved in in the last few years, the Australian Greens are not prepared to give the government a blank cheque when it comes to amending the criminal law. The Australian Greens consider that it is of paramount importance that laws with far-reaching implications are subject to rigorous scrutiny to ensure that they are necessary, that is, there are no other laws which already do the same job; that they are effective, that is, that they will actually work; and also that they are proportionate in terms of their impact on individual rights.

The kinds of laws that require this kind of scrutiny have significant effects on people's lives. They impose criminal sanctions, and in some cases they restrict liberty or take away existing, traditional common law privileges. So this particular bill seeks to make changes to some fundamental features of our criminal law, from the mental element, which is usually required if someone is to be considered criminally liable, to the court's discretion to impose appropriate sentences and the sharing of information between prosecutors.

Unfortunately, these changes are being advanced without adequate consideration of whether they are necessary, effective or proportionate and without the support of the states and territories and other relevant stakeholders, such as the Law Council of Australia. For these reasons, the Australian Greens have recommended that the bill not be passed in its current form and will be moving amendments to remove the most concerning features of the bill, which are in schedules 5 and 6.

It is not possible to outline in detail each of the 17 schedules of this bill, so I will focus my comments on three schedules—one that we believe is particularly worthy of support and the other two, schedules 5 and 6, that we simply cannot agree with.

So let us look first at schedule 4, which is the forced marriage changes. The Australian Greens firmly believe that schedule 4 is to be commended and should be supported. This schedule does relate to forced marriage. The changes to the forced marriage offences are welcomed by the Greens, as is the recommendation made by the majority of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments review underage sex offences to ensure there is consistency between them and the federal offences of forced marriage.

But I must turn now to the most problematic aspects of the bill. These are: inserting the concept of being 'knowingly concerned' in the commission of an offence as an additional form of secondary criminal liability in schedule 5; and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for firearm trafficking offences in schedule 6. Both of these features of the bill have been strongly criticised by a number of individuals and organisations who have made submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's inquiry into the bill, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council of Australia and Australian Lawyers for Human Rights. These features of the bill were also subject to rigorous and concerned scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 22nd report of the 44th Parliament.

In its report the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights found that the mandatory sentencing amendments proposed in schedule 6 of the bill were 'likely to be incompatible with the right to a fair trial and the right not to be arbitrarily detained'. Mandatory sentencing provisions have long been shown to be ineffective and unfair, and for this reason the Australian Greens have always opposed them whenever governments of any persuasion have sought to introduce them in what is usually a populist bid to look like they are being tough on crime. This particular coalition government has repeatedly attempted to introduce mandatory penalties for firearm trafficking, removing the time-honoured role for judges to exercise discretion and judgment by taking into account the particular circumstances surrounding a particular offence and offender.

There is absolutely no evidence that mandatory sentencing reduces crime. But there is much evidence that it can lead to manifest injustice. Despite strong criticism from criminology experts, members of the judiciary, the legal profession and the Australian Human Rights Commission, this government remains determined to remove the court's power to impose a penalty that fits the crime, even though all the evidence suggests that this does not actually add anything to crime prevention. Indeed, the Attorney-General's own department has confirmed that it is not aware of any cases at all where the current sentences for trafficking of firearms or firearm parts have been insufficient. So why is it necessary?

The Australian Greens are not prepared to give up—in favour of mere cheap populism—important and respected principles to enhance the rule of law or Australia's international human rights obligations or indeed strategies for deterrence that are based on evidence. If the government is serious about preventing trafficking in firearms—and it should be—it should start by implementing the considered recommendations of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's inquiry into illicit guns in Australia, which I chaired and which reported earlier this year.

For these reasons, the Australian Greens will be moving an amendment to remove schedule 6 from the bill.

I will turn now to schedule 5, which seeks to amend the Criminal Code to increase liability for an offence if a person was 'knowingly concerned' in the commission of an offence by inserting that new concept into section 11.2 of the Criminal Code. The Australian Greens share the same concerns strongly raised by the Law Council of Australia and others about this development. Why? You may ask: does it not sound reasonable on the surface? And that is the problem. This essentially introduces a new form of extended criminal liability into the Commonwealth Criminal Code without certainty or clarity about what the concept really means. There is already an extensive secondary liability regime under the Criminal Code, and this existing regime already makes it an offence to aid and abet or conspire with another to commit an offence.

The Australian courts are already intimately acquainted with the concept of 'aid, abet or conspire'. Some say it is a gold standard for secondary liability. This additional concept of 'knowingly concerned' was specifically considered and rejected as a form of secondary liability when the Criminal Code was being developed. It is an amorphous concept, more vague and open-ended than the traditional formula of 'aid, abet, counsel or procure', as was pointed out by those who drafted the current Criminal Code.

They rejected this addition at the time because they thought it 'would add little in substance and is more open-ended' and preferred the terms 'aid, abet, counsel or procure' because they are well understood in criminal codes across the country and within common law jurisdictions. It is bemusing to me that the Attorney-General is now turning his back on this accepted wisdom to introduce another category of criminal liability, particularly in the context of a rapid expansion of the type of conduct that now constitutes a criminal offence under the code.

The Australian Greens support efforts to ensure our criminal law is responsive to new forms of criminal activity and is effective in terms of deterring and prosecuting crime. We do have to respond in a timely and effective way to changes in criminal behaviour, but we also know that, while it may see a cheap and easy option to continually expanding the parameters of the criminal law, it does not guarantee strong crime prevention results. It may look as though something is being done; it does not necessarily work. This is particularly true when changes are made to the criminal law that make it difficult for police, prosecutors, juries and the community to understand what is and what is not an offence.

Introducing vague and complex concepts such as 'knowingly concerned' that move further and further away from the traditional elements of a criminal offence make it harder, not easier, to gather evidence and successfully prosecute those involved in criminal activity. The Law Council has asked the pertinent question: what does the addition of 'knowingly concerned' really add to the Criminal Code? For example, would a journalist who goes undercover to observe the actions of a particular group in order to write a story about them and sees them commit offences be 'knowingly concerned' in the commission of an offence? What if the journalist were an undercover police officer, obtaining criminal intelligence? What about a situation where family members give comfort to an aged and terminally ill parent who takes a suicide pill? Could the family members then be considered to have been 'knowingly concerned' in the suicide?

I will be asking the Attorney-General these questions in the committee stage of this debate. I guarantee that the response I will get from the Attorney-General will be the response I always get when I ask questions about where the drafting of the act is amorphous, unclear and uncertain, which is highly undesirable when you are setting up a criminal regime and people have a right to know what is and what is not an offence. The response I will get from the Attorney-General will be, 'Senator Wright, I don't deal in hypotheticals.' The problem is we keep having legislation proposed to us where the limits of the offences are not clear. It means that Australian citizens cannot go about their lives with the certainty that they are or they are not committing a criminal offence.

There is also a conceptual problem here. Under the new test of 'knowingly concerned', the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant intended to be knowingly concerned. The Law Council has, I think reasonably, submitted that this does not appear to make any sense. It also begs the question: if the prosecution has evidence that a person intended to be 'knowingly concerned' in the commission of the offence—for example, evidence that they intentionally participated in the planning of the offence—why could they not be prosecuted under an existing category of criminal liability such as conspiracy or aiding and abetting?

From a human rights and rule of law perspective, we should always set a high hurdle of necessity before sweeping new forms of criminal liability are introduced. In this particular case, legal commentators agree that the government has not even come close to justifying why we need this new concept of 'knowingly concerned' or what it would actually add, in practical terms, to the existing extended liability provisions in the Criminal Code. For these reasons, the Australian Greens do not support changes to introduce the concept of 'knowingly concerned' into the Criminal Code as a general principle of criminal responsibility. For this reason, in addition to amending the bill to remove the mandatory sentencing provisions, I will be moving an amendment to remove schedule 5 from the bill.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 is another bill by the coalition government designed to protect Australians, to make it as reasonable as possible for there to be convictions of a number of offences which currently go unchallenged because of the complexity of the law. Sure, I heard previous speakers and I heard evidence that there are some concerns about some infringements of human rights and personal liberties but in Australia at the moment the greater concern is that we have to keep all Australians safe and we have to give our law enforcement and our protection agencies every opportunity of being able to compete with those who would wish to harm Australians.

While I understand why the government has proceeded with this bill, I regret that other political parties—and you have heard from some of them in this debate—do not have the same commitment to keeping Australians safe. There is always the concern about the rights of the accused. Rarely do we hear the same concerns about the rights of the victims or the rights of every Australian to live their life peacefully.

I chaired the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which held an inquiry into this matter. We had a number of submissions and I thank those who took the time to put some serious effort into the submissions they made. I do appreciate that and thank them on behalf of the committee. The committee held a public hearing in Sydney on 20 May and a number of witnesses appeared. I thank those witnesses for their assistance to the committee in considering what is accepted to be a quite complex bill.

Again I repeat that this bill is all about giving our enforcement agencies and our protection agencies every opportunity to discharge their duties in keeping Australians safe. I would point out that organised criminals, gangs, terrorists and would-be terrorists do not have to abide by the same rules and regulations that enforcement agencies, protection agencies and prosecution agencies have to abide by. They know no rules. They can do what they like. They can breach every rule known to Australians or to humanity, and they have no qualms or restraints in doing that. That is why it is essential that we give our agencies every opportunity to keep Australians safe.

Other speakers have gone through at some length what is in the bill. I will not take the time of the Senate by repeating those comments, but as committee chair I do want to thank those who made detailed submissions to the inquiry. We have considered the concerns raised by submitters, particularly relating to schedules 1, 5 and 6 of the bill. While the committee understood that some of these provisions may have some impact on individuals' freedoms and liberties, the committee acknowledged that the first priority is to keep our nation safe. Events earlier this year, such as the Martin Place siege, have deeply affected the committee and have demonstrated that stronger laws to protect the community are needed.

The committee noted the findings of the Australian Crime Commission in its Organised crime in Australia 2015 report which demonstrate that 'organised criminal gangs represent an ongoing threat to this country' and are relying on new technologies to escape prosecution. The law must keep pace with modern technology and the way in which criminals operate. The committee noted that the majority of provisions contained in the bill have been drafted at the request of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The committee agreed that the passage of the bill would remove impediments currently faced by the Commonwealth DPP when prosecuting offenders for serious crimes. The proposed amendments would ensure that offenders are no longer being charged with offences that do not reflect their true level of criminality. The committee was of the view that overall both the minister and the department had provided sufficient justification for the measures contained in this bill, and the committee consequently recommended that the bill be passed.

As well as recommending that the bill be passed, the committee indicated that it thought that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments should consider reviewing underage sex offences to ensure that there is consistency with the federal offences of forced marriage. As other speakers have said, the issue of forced marriage was very prominent in the submissions made to the committee in relation to that aspect of this bill. The committee agreed that the amendments proposed would result in additional protection for children and persons with a disability who do not have the capacity to consent to marriage. The committee was persuaded by the evidence of the Law Council of Australia that it would be beneficial for the government to conduct a review of other underage sex offences that may accompany a forced marriage offence. This would ensure that, where the prosecution brings charges for forced marriage and underage sex offences, the same onus of proof would apply to all charges—hence the second recommendation of the committee. I certainly hope that the Commonwealth government will institute those reviews with state and territory governments to ensure there is some consistency with the federal offences of forced marriage.

In relation to the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, the committee, while noting concerns raised by a number of submitters—some of which have been repeated in this debate—believed that the government had introduced sufficient safeguards to ensure that no injustices resulted. Further, as identified by the Australian Human Rights Commission, there is a safeguard afforded by section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, which empowers the Attorney-General to issue directions or guidelines to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions which 'relate to the circumstances in which the director should institute or carry on prosecutions for offences'. The committee is aware that past Attorneys-General have issued section 8 directives in relation to the application of mandatory minimum sentencing.

The committee was concerned about the apparent lack of consultation between the government and stakeholders prior to the drafting of the bill. The committee is of the view that, due to the technical nature of the amendments proposed in this bill and the number of schedules, it would have been beneficial had the government engaged in a consultation process with stakeholders and state and territory DPPs. For example, evidence from the Attorney-General's Department that the amendments would be welcomed by its state and territory counterparts was at odds with submissions from both the NSW and Victorian DPPs raising concerns over the amendments in schedule 9 of the bill. The Law Council of Australia also advised the committee that, whilst it had met with the department, it had not been consulted on the explicit amendments in the bill.

The committee was of the firm view that there was value in government consulting with relevant stakeholders during the development of the proposed legislation. The committee thought that some prior consultation with relevant stakeholders would assist the government in getting the drafting right and would perhaps pre-empt some objections that may have been made to the bill. The committee cannot understand why the government does not, as a matter of course, do that. This was raised with the department. We would certainly urge that, in the future, particularly in relation to complex bills of a legal nature, the department consult with relevant stakeholders, not so much on the themes or the end result they want but on how best to achieve that, and that they use the expertise that is available amongst the stakeholders to make sure that the legislation is as it is meant to be. The committee welcomed the suggestion from the Law Council that, in future, consultations could be undertaken by the relevant department or the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council.

Having thoroughly and carefully considered all aspects of this bill, the committee did recommend that it be passed, subject to the condition I mentioned. Can I conclude where I started. This bill is not about making things tough for Australian agencies, border protection forces, police and prosecutors; it is about giving them an equal chance—a chance that is at least equal to the criminals, the terrorists and law-breakers that they are charged with apprehending. It is about giving our police and enforcement agencies the same opportunities to arrest and convict those who would harm our fellow Australians.

This bill is another in a series by the Abbott government that will ensure that Australians are kept safe. I can guarantee members of the Senate, and they will know from their own experiences, that that is what most Australians expect and want from their federal government. They are not terribly interested in the niceties of some of the erudite legal arguments that have been raised in this debate. What Australians want to know is that their government is doing everything possible to protect the personal safety of themselves and their families. On that basis, this bill does go towards that end. It is appropriate and, as the committee recommended, it should be passed.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might open by saying that I am on the cusp of suffering from crime fatigue. It troubles me that, as I make a contribution to this Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015, it seems to be heavy going for our government to try to put in place adequate laws and adequate tools, resources and powers for those of our nation who are charged with the responsibility of maintaining law and order. The effort to get this Senate to support us on some of these measures seems to be quite heavy going.

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that one of the greatest costs to our nation is the cost to administer people's lawlessness, their criminal and quasi-criminal activities. I make the point that, whilst not necessarily directly relating to crimes and misdemeanours, when people's everyday behaviour is against a rule or a regulation it can have a cost to our nation.

All of us have driven along our great highways and seen long sections of road, some of them for 20 or 30 kilometres, where there are the imprints of truck tyres that have destroyed $200 billion worth of pavement in less than an hour. These trucks that are overloaded and not rated for that purpose, drive along the highway on a hot day and that can impact on the cost of our nation by effectively rendering a road unserviceable or, at the very least, reducing the life of that road. Its serviceability can be reduced by a decade or more, meaning that some government or another has to attend to the capital works to replace the road for our use.

This cost of people's behaviour on our nation is very, very heavy. It is one that weighs heavy on the minds of Australians. It is no secret to those of us involved in politics that what is on the mind of most Australians—in no particular order for some or a particular order for others, depending on where they are in their life—are the issues of health, education and law and order.

It is well recognised, and there has been a lot of research done in this space, that law and order will always take precedence when the community feels insecure. Education is significantly important to us because as parents and as grandparents we devote a large part of our lives and the resources of our lives to ensuring that we get the very best education for our children. We also work very hard—and this government has made both education and health a serious focus of its term—to try and get the best health services in place for the citizens of Australia. Recently, through this very House, we spoke about looking over the horizon and investing in research for future health benefits of Australians.

But when you do some qualitative research and have discussions with our citizens, they will tell you that, without law and order, issues such as health, education and many other issues are not important to them. They need to feel safe. This government is very conscious of that. This government is acutely aware of the negative impacts of lawless behaviour on the citizens of the nation and of the impacts it has—and it has massive impacts—on our nation's economy and productivity.

I do not intend to revisit that space because it makes my head hurt after the contributions I have had to make over the last couple of days with the CFMEU and all those associated issues. But, nonetheless, the government is well aware of it, and this Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill is a very well thought through, very considered, contribution that will assist this government in putting in place measures that give those tools, powers and resources to our law enforcement agencies and allied agencies to enable them to keep our country safe.

The challenges that present for our nation, and indeed for those people who are charged with keeping us safe, have increased dramatically. I myself have a background in law enforcement, which I have mentioned in contributions I have made to the Senate before. I remember recently making a contribution to the preface of a book that was published by retired Assistant Commissioner Laurie Pointing, whom I had the privilege of serving as a staff officer in the mid-1980s. Laurie had chronicled law enforcement over the form of his career.

In my contribution to his book I made the point—and it was an observation, not a reflection—that when Laurie and his peers were selected as police officers they were largely selected because of their physical prowess and their ability to demonstrate the application of common sense in their role as peace officers.

At the time that he started—and fortunately Laurie is still with us, writ large and living in my home state of Queensland—police were still moving around in many of the regions with the use of horses. They sometimes had to travel up to 100 kilometres, in modern lingo—back then, about 60 miles—to access a telegraph line or, on rare occasions, phone lines. Many of them were on their own and it might have taken them a week or two to do a job that would today take an hour or two. They would travel with horses and packhorses to the far-flung areas of their often lonely police beats to attend upon complaints of crime.

At that time, and I referred to this in the preface, they had no concept of the transition that would happen in law enforcement—Laurie acknowledged this himself—in the space of his career. When he retired he was in charge of some 670 personnel who shared almost 300 vehicles, and those vehicles were fitted with the very latest technologies. That is the reference I made to the tools and resources that we need to put in place for these people to do their jobs, and this legislation in part addresses some of those challenges.

Today we see that our law enforcement agents can conduct their patrols, and in the space of seconds they can successfully access data to: help them to identify an individual; tell them facts and figures about vehicles and vehicle movements; about who the owner may be and where the owner lives—at least according to the registered data; whether the owner or driver, if they have been intercepted, has a criminal history and if they are wanted for questioning for any offences or if there are outstanding warrants and the like. Those capabilities are new capabilities. In my lifetime one would often have to wait overnight for information. Those of us who were, sadly, born in the 1950s or so will remember the old teletypes—where you would send a message away and you were lucky to get a reply, sometimes, within 10 or 12 hours.

I know that this coalition government is committed to this particular purpose—it is significantly important that we not just keep up but also, to the best of our ability, get one step ahead of those who would commit criminal offences, so that we are in a position to detect them. But most importantly, the ideal ought to be—and I know this is the ideal objective of most law enforcement and security agencies—to get ahead of the game and either prevent the crime or the behaviour happening in the first instance or present such a united, efficient and competent front that it acts as a deterrent.

I will visit one or two of the statistics that make modern law enforcement and the need for these types of legislative changes essential. We have some 50 million movements across our borders annually—50 million people; imagine that. If those travellers reflect society, then a significant percentage of them have probably engaged in criminal behaviour historically. Additionally, it would not be unreasonable for us to propose that a number of the 50 million would actually be travelling to our country to give effect to their criminal behaviour. And let us not forget those who are committing a criminal offence when they leave our nation. They could be carrying prohibited goods or they could be heading off somewhere in the world to commit an offence as described under the jurisdiction of our nation, such as the alleged fighters—cowards, I say—who are leaving our nation to join conflicts to kill and pillage innocent citizens in, in this case, the Middle East.

If the 50 million does not boggle your mind, let us compare the people movements across borders now in our country with the numbers that Assistant Commissioner Pointing and his colleagues confronted just 30 or 40 years ago. We are dealing with hundreds and hundreds of millions of movements across our state borders each year. I drove back to Canberra from Sydney on Sunday, and there was a constant stream of traffic in two lanes in front of me for as far as they eye could see—the whole way from Sydney to Canberra. I have no doubt that, had I had the capacity to look all the way back to Sydney when I reached the outskirts of this city, that line would be unbroken all the way back to the New South Wales capital. So think about that. Not only do we have 50 million people coming across our borders and leaving our borders, but we have hundreds and hundreds of millions of people—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

I heard that interjection—including, sadly, members of the CFMEU, who deserve some personal attention. I would advocate that this legislation be slightly further amended to put in a dedicated division of all law enforcement agencies just to wake up each day to deal with the CFMEU and those who support them in their behaviour. But I digress.

As well as the relatively porous borders internationally and the very porous borders of our states, we have the movements within a state. Again we are dealing with hundreds of millions of movements every day. Offenders have the ability to go and commit a crime at a new place; they can leave home in the morning, drive 600 kilometres, commit an offence and be back home to have tea with the wife and kids, in effect. When you think of the very nature of law enforcement, particularly post-event investigation, the challenges are enormous. They really are enormous. You might be left with the colour of a car, a make and model—and, of course, there will be hundreds of thousands of them in the state and the vehicle in question might not now be a local vehicle. We need to ensure that we have the tools and the resources to deal with that, and this bill is looking to do that. This bill is looking to make sure that these people are resourced with the equipment that they need and the financial support that they require, as well as the powers that one needs to equip oneself to do the job.

If none of the other things that I have spoken about present a challenge, we have the area of new technologies. That is the internet, in particular, but it is not limited to that alone, of course. These new technologies are being applied for the commission of offences, and equally they are being used to avoid detection—to conceal the behaviour of individuals. Mind you, when people commit an offence or they set out to commit an offence, most of them—except for the true idiots—make an effort to conceal their behaviour. Some of them are not very good at it, but indeed each of them will put a pair of socks on their hands and wear an old balaclava that they found in their grandma's drawer to try to reduce the prospects of detection—except for the members of the CFMEU, who are not ashamed to show their faces as they move around and commit offences in this country. But again, I digress. I really wish I had never heard of the CFMEU, because I am breaking out in cold sweats when I mention the name. Let us come back to the issue of the technologies. With these new technologies it is very difficult for law enforcement agencies to keep up. We have things known as the 'black net'. Apparently if you have an ability to do more than turn the device on, you can delve somewhere into the deep bowels of the ether of—I don't know—cloudland or something. That used to be a dance venue in Brisbane when I was a young fellow.

Let me close because, whilst I could truly go on for hours and hours and each time I ran out of something to say I could just start to talk about the CFMEU again, unfortunately my time comes to a close. I say to colleagues that, even though we have had a battle in this place over the last few days about resourcing and providing powers to agencies to curb the lawlessness of some of the trade union movement, this is a more widespread bill. This will give it to our law enforcement agencies. This will give new powers, tools and resources to those people charged with protecting our nation, the security of our nation and our families. I commend as loudly as I can the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 to the Senate.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too stand to make a short contribution to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. It is a real pleasure to be here today to speak to this bill, because it does deliver on a commitment that was made by the Abbott government when it was in opposition to tackle crime and to make sure that we make our communities safer. I cannot understand why anybody in this place would not want to see anything enforced to make sure that our communities are safer from criminals. The most important thing that we can do as a government is to make sure that we provide the necessary tools to our law enforcement officers to make sure that they are able to do that.

The reality is that we live in a new world. There is no question that the tools that are available to our criminals these days are quite different to the tools that were available in the past. As Senator O'Sullivan, who has been a law enforcement officer for most of his life, quite rightly points out, we have to make sure that the tools that we give to our law enforcement officers are commensurate with the tools that are available to the criminals, because, if we are going to catch criminals, we need to be at least as well resourced as they are and preferably better resourced. If we are going to keep our community safe then we need to make sure that the full weight of the ability of this parliament is given to our law enforcement officers so that we can keep the men and women of Australia safe.

What we have got today is a suite of powers that we are putting forward to this parliament to enable the Commonwealth to be able to make laws that are robust, effective and reflect the government's efforts to target criminals and reduce the heavy cost of crime to Australians. Crime is not just affecting those people that are directly impacted by the crime; across the whole of the country the cost of crime to this nation is absolutely massive. This bill seeks to make sure that we give the tools necessary to our enforcement officers so that they can reduce the level of cost to our community for crimes that are committed.

There is a suite of different specific measures within this bill—for example, tougher penalties for gun related crimes. The bill introduces mandatory minimum sentencing for five years imprisonment for the offences of the illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts into Australia and illegally moving firearms and firearm parts across borders within Australia. It gives mandatory minimum penalties. It sends a very strong message to the gun related crimes and acts as a deterrent to our criminals so that they do not think that it is easy to get their hands on these lethal weapons.

Another measure in this is the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursory offences, which is a really serious issue at the moment. We have all been talking about the epidemic of ice in this community. We heard the very sad story of Senator Lambie and her son, but there are many sad stories out there about the impacts of drugs on our community. Whilst we understand that we certainly are not going to enforce our way out of the drug problem that we have got in Australia and in particular this methamphetamine problem, it is one of the tools that we need to make sure that our law enforcement officers have got so that they can do their very best to try and get these drugs off the streets. Whilst we have to change, we have to educate our community and we have to work with the people who are impacted—and there is a whole heap of social and cultural change that needs to take place to enable us to deal with the drug issue—one of the very strong platforms within that suite of things that we must do as a community to deal with drugs is to make sure that our law enforcement officers have got the necessary tools to make sure that they can get these perpetrators, who are killing our children, off the streets. I do not think anybody in this place would be particularly—

Debate interrupted.