Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. For a lot of us, when we are out in the streets doorknocking, one of the issues that come up is law and order. There are those moments when something has happened in the lives of the people that we meet. It might be hooning in the street or antisocial behaviour in the park, even littering. These are the issues that come up quite often. There is never a bad word spoken about the police or other law enforcement agencies. Often it is explained to me at the front doors of houses in Cowan that when the police do their job and they go to court that it is often the case that the penalty imposed upon those that have been caught offending does not meet community expectations. The member for Batman in his contribution mentioned that mandatory sentences undermine confidence in the judiciary. I think that sentences that do not meet community expectations are a much bigger problem with undermining the standing of the judiciary with the community.

I am quite sure that those that are on the receiving end of offences in this country as victims want to see that the punishment, the sentences, fit the crime. I think that a lot of people in this country welcome mandatory sentences. I endorse the fact that this bill will again introduce mandatory minimum sentences for offenders charged with trafficking of firearms under the Criminal Code. That is certainly something that people feel is necessary. They want to have confidence that again the punishment, the sentences, fit the crime. Firearms are obviously a deadly force and the trafficking of firearms increases the risk on our streets—there is no doubt about it.

I digress to a degree because this bill really is about ensuring that the law enforcement agencies have the tools and the powers necessary to do their job—to do what is necessary to keep Australians as safe as possible—and that those laws can stand up, that they are robust and that they are effective in dealing with the threats that crime poses to our citizens and residents of this country. With due respect, it is definitely very important that we have bills that do upgrades to better meet the threats that criminal offences pose. It is very important that we have these sorts of bills to look at the challenges and the threats of the modern age. I endorse that aspect with regards to penalties for firearms trafficking offences.

I would also like to talk briefly about the domestic production of methamphetamine and ice. This is receiving a lot of media attention lately. There are fairly constant reports about the threat that ice as a drug poses. There are towns in regional Australia that have been reported as being greatly affected by ice. I saw some disturbing figure—and I hope it is incorrect—that something like two per cent of the Australian population has had contact with ice. That is incredibly disturbing. Obviously no good can come of this and I am certainly one of those in favour of strong law enforcement at the same time as appropriate measures to deal with the scourge of addiction in this country. It is important that we have all the laws possible which are going to help control and deal with the importation of precursors—the materials necessary to make methamphetamine and ice.

One of my constituents, Richard Boudville, has sent me many articles on the problems with ice and I thank him for keeping me up-to-date with the latest in news reports on this matter. Not far from my electorate office about six or eight months ago one of my constituents found a person who apparently was a user of ice ransacking their house. After chasing this person out onto the street, the person hopped into a car and then tried to run my constituent over. That really does say something about the effects of ice, the lack of rationality and the need for us to act on this problem, not just with regards to our health and addiction treatments but also to send a very clear message to people that it remains an illegal activity and that people should keep away from it.

The next point I would like to raise is that aspect of the bill which deals with forced marriage. Somewhat different to forced marriages are arranged marriages. Cowan is quite a diverse electorate and I have lots of people that are of Indian origin or ethnically Indian from other countries around the world and a number of people have endorsed arranged marriages. It is something that I guess I am still getting used to—I find it a little bit odd but apparently sometimes they work out quite well and culturally that is the way things are done in some parts of the world—but I would like to draw a big difference between that and forced marriages. The high-profile case—and I am sure it is not the only one in this country—was in 2013 where a 12-year-old apparently, according to her father, agreed to marry a man who was 26 years old. To me that just looks like paedophilia and I am glad a number of charges were made in connection with that.

It is important that the amendments as part of this bill will make it clear that forced marriage offences apply where a person is incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony because of their age or mental capacity. It is wrong on so many levels that someone as young as 12, or 13 or 14, should be forced into marriage—at those ages there should be no marriage at all. To me, in a perfect world, there should be no marriage before 18. Of course there are certain issues relating to that but certainly when we talk about 16 and under it is a terrible thing. Forced marriages are completely and utterly reprehensible.

Unfortunately, this case in 2013 is not isolated. I suspect there has been plenty of that. I do make an assertion there that I cannot prove, but I suspect it is not uncommon in certain parts of this country—and wherever it occurs it is most definitely wrong. I certainly support every effort to make it a more severe offence with increased penalties. Currently the maximum penalties are four years imprisonment or seven years imprisonment for an aggravated offence, but that should be upgraded and I certainly endorse the fact that the maximum penalties will become seven and nine years for these sorts of offences.

I do not want to go through every part of this bill word for word or repeat every line of the changes, but I do go to the issue of being 'knowingly concerned.' This bill talks about changes where being knowingly involved in supporting or enabling crimes should be imported back into the Criminal Code. When I was in the Federal Police back in the eighties, and even in the military police, again before 1995, it was certainly the case that 'knowingly concerned' was an offence that could be used to capture the involvement of people on the periphery of some offences but nevertheless who were undermining public safety through their knowledge. I have no problem at all with endorsing the return of being 'knowingly concerned' as an offence in the Commonwealth code. It is absolutely appropriate that we make sure that everyone, whether they are directly involved or just know of the events taking place, should be subject to possible prosecution. To do otherwise would basically have the effect of undermining our community safety.

The amendments contained in this bill are completely appropriate and I certainly support them. Although it is clear that the opposition is opposed to a number of these measures, I nevertheless look forward to them passing here and then in the Senate as well.

See this speech in context