Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—Mr Deputy Speaker, I can do no less than begin by thanking the member for Banks for his kind remarks—and perhaps I should thank him for his kind remarks about you as well. To be fair, there have been several occasions during this debate when it seemed as if we were taking a position more akin to State of Origin than the normal division between the several sides of this House! I thank the member for Banks also for his thoughtful contribution, which demonstrated his own experience and deep understanding of the criminal law.

I mention other matters that were raised during the debate. I do not think it is necessary for me to again rehearse the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Matters) Bill 2008they have been sufficiently described—but during the debate the member for Werriwa mentioned the proposal for a single national case management system for police in which each jurisdiction could share. This is certainly an important idea. More effective information sharing between policing agencies is inherently desirable, and the government will indeed be looking at this issue of case management at the national level, taking into account the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission in its 2007 report Inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian society.

A matter which was raised during the debate by the member for Blair concerned the Model Criminal Code and his support for the further development of that code through all jurisdictions. There has actually been some not insignificant implementation of many chapters of the Model Criminal Code by a number of states and territories, including in New South Wales during my time as Attorney General there. We have passed model laws concerning antislavery measures, computer offences and bushfire offences. My recollection is that New South Wales actually implemented the model law for forensic procedures. However, there are some significant gaps in implementation. I should mention, reverting to ‘State of Origin’ mode, that although Queensland has a criminal code it does not in fact take part in the project for a model code. That would be necessary if we were indeed to introduce the model code across the nation. In that context, I mention also that at the meeting of the state and Commonwealth attorneys-general in March, which I attended with our Attorney-General, we secured agreement to review the implementation of the model code and to develop proposals to progress its further implementation. We will be talking about that again at our next meeting, which I think takes place next month.

I think I have been able to respond to some important ideas put up by members during the debate on what everyone has conceded is a technical, if necessary, bill. Before I conclude, I table a correction to the explanatory memorandum for this bill to correct a minor error. The correction clarifies that item 2 of schedule 1 of the bill, dealing with the deferral of the DNA review, commences on the day of royal assent rather than the day after royal assent. That is a technical correction to a technical bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context