Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Paterson, I think, would really like to live in Queensland, because there are really only two types of people: those who live there and those who would like to live there.

It is pleasing to be able to join the debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008. It is often considered in the Australian community that those who are in the government and in the opposition basically agree on nothing. But the reality is, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the overwhelming majority of bills that come into this place do in fact enjoy bipartisan support because, frankly, they are common sense. Often when we debate these bills we wonder why we did not make these decisions earlier. This bill, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008, seeks to make a number of relatively minor adjustments and inclusions in some of the legislation that assists and supports our crime-fighting agencies to be better able to do their jobs. It is a matter of general concern in the community that the level of lawlessness seems to be much higher than it may have been in the past. Previously people had often been able to go about their daily lives unconcerned at the level of crime, but everyone in our society is worried over the level of crime that we have, and the legislation we have that enables our law enforcement agencies to do what they need to do should enjoy everyone’s support.

Our crime-fighting agencies have highly professional officers. They make the decision to serve their communities through the police service and I think all of us would commend those officers for their decision to follow a vocational path that has at its heart that dedication to the community. Often their families suffer as a result of the service of these officers in the interests of the community. They carry out an incredibly challenging role and one that is often the target of public criticism.

Sometimes people have individual complaints about law enforcement officers, whereas most law enforcement officers endeavour to carry out their duties to the best of their ability. That is not to say that we ought not to have mechanisms in place for when people do have genuine complaints about law enforcement agencies. That, I believe, is also a matter of bipartisan attitude. However, anyone who legitimately serves in a law enforcement agency from the Australian Federal Police through to the police services in our states and territories really should be praised for their hard work, their dedication and their commitment to their fellow Australians. So to our men and women in uniform and those who are not in uniform I say: well done and thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that the changes set out in this bill will assist law enforcement officers and better ensure the safety of Australians. The bill will reinsert the maximum penalty of two years in prison for the secrecy offences as outlined in the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. As a drafting error, this penalty was inadvertently removed from the act a couple of years ago through changes to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner (Consequential Amendments) Act 2006. The reintroduction of the two-year penalty will be made retrospective to the date when it was removed to ensure any offenders who are or have been charged and convicted under the laws are not able to, shall we say, defeat the intention of the law.

I am someone who has a major concern, generally speaking, in relation to retrospectivity. It is my personal belief that a citizen ought to be able to operate within the law as it currently exists without having the parliament come along at a later date, change the law and then apply that changed law to the earlier date when the action was carried out. I suppose a very bad example of that would be where someone was driving down Kingsford Smith Drive at Hamilton observing what was then the speed limit to find the parliament then retrospectively reduced the speed limit and imposed penalties on someone who, at the time he or she was driving down Kingsford Smith Drive, was observing the law. The situation of this bill, however, is not like that. What we are doing is simply fixing up an unintended consequence, I suppose, of bad drafting of the amending legislation in 2006.

Secondly, the bill changes the review date for sections of the Crimes Act 1914 that deal with the collection and use of DNA evidence. The Crimes Act 1914 as amended had included a date for a second review of the provisions of the act that established the national criminal investigation DNA database. That date was to have been March 2005, which I suppose with hindsight was an inappropriate date. It was too early a date by which to have a thorough review. It is preferable, as has become obvious, that any newly established body be given an adequate and reasonable time frame to execute all of its tasks so that, for example, the national DNA database has at least been tried and tested on more than one occasion so that the reviewers actually have something to review. To ensure that the planned review will be meaningful, the bill sets a new date of 1 November next year. This new date will allow for the compilation of a body of cases which will include initial matching of DNA samples using the NCIDNAD through to investigation of cases and finally trial. Undoubtedly, every reasonable person would say that this is a very sensible amendment to the act.

Thirdly, the bill ensures that crimes committed on an aircraft during a flight will be dealt with under appropriate laws and through relevant channels and that offenders will face the appropriate deterrents and penalties. This change to the law impacts on any aircraft involved in a flight within Australia or to or from another country. The offences outlined in the Australian Capital Territory Crimes Act 1900 and Prostitution Act 1992 that are referred to are under section 15 of the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. However, some of the crimes previously in the Crimes Act are now contained in the relatively new Criminal Code 2002.

This bill ensures that the new Criminal Code now also applies on flights and provides legislative integrity in the event of further changes to the ACT Criminal Code in future years. These major changes will enhance the fighting of crime in Australia. These are changes which should enjoy the support of everyone.

Before I resume my place, I want to comment briefly on a point made by the honourable member for Blair. In his contribution he referred to how, with respect to family law, we had been able to harmonise the law in Australia. I think all of us would like to see the laws in our states as close as possible to the laws in other parts of the country so that we have a system of harmonised law. There are of course some matters where the Australian government is able to engineer that uniformity but, given the federal nature of our Constitution, there are other matters where this desirable outcome is more difficult. I am happy to commend the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008 to the House.

See this speech in context