|
representatives vote 2017-10-25#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-10-27 14:10:37
|
Title
Bills — Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail- Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Support amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Michael Keenan</p><p>by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 10), after item 1F, insert:</p>- The majority voted in favour of [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-10-25.124.2) to the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1042). These amendments were introduced by Justice Minister [Michael Keenan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/stirling/michael_keenan).
- ### What does this bill do?
- The bill creates mandatory minimum sentences and increases maximum penalties for the offences of trafficking firearms or parts of firearms both within Australia and between Australia and the rest of the world.
- Read the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd029) for more information.
<p class="italic">2 After section 360.3 of the <i>Criminal Code</i></p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">360.3A Minimum penalties</p><p class="italic">(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment of at least 5 years for a person convicted of an offence against this Division.</p><p class="italic"> <i>People aged under 18</i></p><p class="italic">(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who was aged under 18 years when the offence was committed.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Reduction of minimum penalty</i></p><p class="italic">(3) A court may impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than the period specified in subsection (1) only if the court considers it appropriate to reduce the sentence because of either or both of the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (g) of the <i>Crimes Act 1914</i>, the person pleading guilty;</p><p class="italic">(b) the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (h) of that Act, the person having cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence.</p><p class="italic">(4) If a court may reduce a sentence, the court may reduce the sentence as follows:</p><p class="italic">(a) if the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (g) of the <i>Crimes Act 1914</i>, the person pleading guilty—by an amount that is up to 25% of the period specified in subsection (1);</p><p class="italic">(b) if the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (h) of that Act, the person having cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence—by an amount that is up to 25% of the period specified in subsection (1);</p><p class="italic">(c) if the court is taking into account both of the matters in paragraphs (a) and (b)—by an amount that is up to 50% of the period specified in subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 4), after item 3M, insert:</p><p class="italic">4 After section 361.4 of the <i>Criminal Code</i></p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">361.5 Minimum penalties</p><p class="italic">(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment of at least 5 years for a person convicted of an offence against this Division.</p><p class="italic"> <i>People aged under 18</i></p><p class="italic">(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who was aged under 18 years when the offence was committed.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Reduction of minimum penalty</i></p><p class="italic">(3) A court may impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than the period specified in subsection (1) if the court considers it appropriate to reduce the sentence because of either or both of the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (g) of the <i>Crimes Act 1914</i>, the person pleading guilty;</p><p class="italic">(b) the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (h) of that Act, the person having cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence.</p><p class="italic">(4) If a court may reduce a sentence, the court may reduce the sentence as follows:</p><p class="italic">(a) if the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (g) of the <i>Crimes Act 1914</i>, the person pleading guilty—by an amount that is up to 25% of the period specified in subsection (1);</p><p class="italic">(b) if the court is taking into account, under paragraph 16A(2) (h) of that Act, the person having cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence—by an amount that is up to 25% of the period specified in subsection (1);</p><p class="italic">(c) if the court is taking into account both of the matters in paragraphs (a) and (b)—by an amount that is up to 50% of the period specified in subsection (1).</p><p class="italic">5 Application of amendments</p><p class="italic">The amendments made by items 2 and 4 of this Schedule apply in relation to conduct engaged in at or after the commencement of this Schedule.</p> <p class="speaker">Clare O'Neil</p><p>():We were very pleased to support the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2017 on the second reading, and that's because this fundamentally was a Labor bill. The legislation that we had before us today was a bill that had actually been completely rewritten by Labor and the crossbench up in the Senate, and that's a bill that we were really proud to work on. Early in the term here, the minister sitting opposite me decided that he would try a little political exercise and try to wedge the Labor Party. So he created a bill that was not much more than something that contained mandatory minimums.</p><p>We don't support mandatory minimums, and we don't for a very good reason: we know that they won't work. We'll have plenty of opportunities during this consideration in detail to go to the evidence that supports that claim. But, because we on the Labor side of the House have such strong concern about gun violence, what we did was take that law—that foolish political exercise—and decide to try to make out of it a good bill that would improve the community safety of Australians. That's why, when it got into the Senate, Labor moved amendments to add aggravated offences to this bill. Those aggravated offences are deliberately targeted at people who are gun running guns into this country, and for the first time it would give courts in Australia the ability to lock these criminals up for life as we believe that some of them deserve.</p><p>Those reforms received bipartisan support. That is to say that reforms that Labor moved over in the other place received the support of the government. And we were very pleased with that. The Senate also made the good decision to remove the mandatory minimums from that bill. As I said, mandatory minimums do not work. The minister probably thought he was being terribly clever trying to wedge Labor. It was an utter failure and an embarrassment in the Senate because what the Senate did was take that political exercise and make it into a law that was going to make Australians safer.</p><p>If the government was not going to be bloody-minded about this, we could actually have a law that protects Australians better right now. If the government and the minister sitting opposite me had the fortitude to stand up and say that these bills would be separated so we could get a good law that appropriately protects Australians and deal with this political distraction of the mandatory minimums later, we'd be very pleased to support that. All of us could leave this House tonight knowing that we had done a good day's work creating good laws that better protect Australians.</p><p>I wrote to the minister last night on this subject because for eight months we have been waiting for this bill to return from the Senate. For eight months we could have had a tougher, stronger law against firearm traffickers, but, because of this minister's bloody-mindedness, we have not had the ability to deal with the reform in the House as we should have. Now, eight months later, when it has come back to us, it has, inserted back into it, mandatory minimums, something the government knows that we are not going to support and something the government knows the Senate will not support, because they've rejected it three times already. And so what we have here is the minister opposite me pretending to care about community safety but instead using this chamber as a political exercise. This is not a student representative council. It's not a local council. This is the federal parliament, where we're supposed to act like adults. It's no wonder so many Australians have lost faith in this chamber's ability to deal with the issues that affect their everyday lives.</p><p>I wrote to the minister last night. I laid out the case for splitting these bills so that we could have tougher, stronger laws against firearm trafficking today and we could deal with the separate political debate that he's evidently so keen on without continuing to hamper the safety of Australians. I have not received a response from the minister. So my question to the minister is: will you split the bill so we can have a better law right now?</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>It's extraordinary that this minister cares so little for the substance of his own amendment that, on moving the amendment, he could not even bring himself to give a speech in support of it. It shows the hollowness and the grubbiness of this failure of a minister that he's not even prepared to speak in favour of his own amendment. What an extraordinary state of affairs that we have a minister, the justice minister, who, with a bill that is already complete—a bill that has come to us from the Senate, a bill that has bipartisan support, a bill that achieves tougher penalties, a bill that does something about gun trafficking in this country—wants to actually worsen that bill and weaken that bill. He is putting forward an extraordinary and pathetic amendment which he's not even prepared to give a speech in favour of. What kind of minister is this? He is a failure of a minister.</p><p>It's extraordinary. He likes to talk about the 2010 mandatory minimum that was introduced by a Labor government for an offence called 'aggravated people smuggling'. Is this failure of a minister seriously suggesting that the introduction of that mandatory sentence stopped people smuggling? I don't think so. If he is, let him say it. But I don't think he is saying that, and he's clearly not listening—</p> <p class="speaker">Honourable Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Hastie</p><p>Order! The member will resume his seat. Now that we have some silence, the honourable member for Isaacs.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, this failure of a minister is clearly not listening to anything that has been said by Labor in this debate. He was clearly not listening to me now, and I'll repeat it. He likes to call in aid the fact that Labor legislated, for a new offence of aggravated people smuggling in 2010, a mandatory minimum sentence. One has to ask: is this minister seriously suggesting that the introduction of this mandatory sentence stopped people smuggling? If he is, let him say it. But I don't think that this minister is saying that.</p><p class="italic">Mr Keenan interjecting—</p><p>If he'd just shut up for a moment and listen, if this failure of a minister had any rigour, he would accept that that one example that he loves to give, because he's only interested in partisan political game-playing, is in fact evidence that mandatory sentencing does not work and has no effect at all. That's the problem with this government. The minister doesn't want to listen, and the government doesn't want to listen, to the Law Council of Australia.</p><p class="italic">Mr Keenan interjecting—</p><p>He loves the sound of his own voice, which is why he's still not shutting up. He doesn't want to listen to the Law Council of Australia. He doesn't want to listen to the Judicial Conference of Australia. He doesn't want to listen to Chief Justice Barwick of the High Court—a former Liberal Attorney-General—to Chief Justice Gibbs of the High Court or to Chief Justice Kiefel of the High Court, all of whom, along with the rest of the High Court for decades, have condemned mandatory minimum sentencing being imposed by this or any other parliament in Australia, because they understand the proper role of the courts, which is to make punishment fit the crime.</p><p>This minister calls himself the Minister for Justice, but he has no idea of justice. He has no idea of the criminal justice system. He has no idea of the damage that he wishes to do with this amendment.</p><p class="italic">Mr Keenan interjecting—</p><p>He's still not listening, Deputy Speaker. He won't shut up. You should try to shut him up because he would be far better off if he listened, not just to me; not just to my colleagues in the Labor Party; and not just to the eloquence of my colleague the shadow minister for justice, the member for Hotham; but to the lawyers of Australia; to the Law Council of Australia, the peak body to every state law society; to every bar council and bar association in this country; to the Australian Bar Association; to the International Commission of Jurists; to the Australian Human Rights Commission; and, as I said before, to the Judicial Conference of Australia; all of whom have condemned mandatory minimum sentences, which do not work and which damage our system of justice.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|