Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I recognise the member for Barker and thank him for his significant contribution in his speech this evening on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. He has worked in a law firm in Mount Gambier and has been on that side of the fence, especially when it comes to dealing with serious drug and precursor offences. Also recently, since he has become a member of parliament, he has had forums where communities have come forward saying how afraid and scared they are about the impact that ice is having on regional and rural communities. He has done a first-rate job in that regard.

I would like to take this moment to support him when he calls for extra services in regional and rural areas when it comes to rehabilitation from drug use. One of the worst effects of isolation is that people do not seek the treatment that they should, because services are not as readily accessible as they are in urban areas. We see the statistics for a range of illnesses which are damning because of the distance that it requires individuals to travel to get to services. That has a huge impact on regional and rural areas. Given the impact that ice in particular is having on regional and rural communities, once again we need to look at what services are available when it comes to rehabilitation in country areas. My hope is that the taskforce that has been set up through COAG will be able to make some positive recommendations in this regard, because it is going to be vitally necessary for us to deal with this issue.

The bill before us is the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. It delivers on the government's commitment to tackle crime and make our communities safer. This is a policy that we took to the last election and are now implementing by providing our law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers they need to do their job and by ensuring government laws are robust and effective. This bill reflects the government's efforts to target criminals and reduce the heavy cost of crime for all Australians, and crime does have a cost. It has a cost to the individual on a personal basis, it has a cost to the family members of those who commit crimes, it has a cost to those whom the crime is committed against, it has a cost to the local community and it has a cost to the economic productivity of our nation. It has a cost every which way you look at it, and that is why, as a government, we are determined to deal with it.

The bill contains a range of measures across various Commonwealth acts. These measures include the need to implement tough penalties for gun related crime; increase the operation and effectiveness of serious drug and precursor offences, as I touched on briefly; increase penalties for forced marriage offences; ensure our criminal offence regimes are robust and effective; and ensure efficient arrangements for administering criminal law and related provisions. In this way the government is delivering on our commitment to tackle crime and keep our communities safe. As the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions, keeping our communities safe and keeping our nation safe has to be the No. 1 responsibility of government, because without that all the other freedoms that we seek to protect and enjoy become meaningless.

I would like to touch on three aspects of the bill in particular. The first is the penalties for firearms trafficking offences, which is schedule 6 of the bill. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I know you are a keen shooter yourself. I obviously represent an electorate where shooting occurs. Being a rural electorate, a lot of sporting shooting takes place, but there is also a need for farmers to shoot as they go about their general business. What we are seeking to do here is very much target the illegal use of firearms. The bill introduces mandatory minimum sentences of five years' imprisonment for the offence of illegal importation of firearms and firearm parts into Australia and illegally moving firearms and firearm parts across borders within Australia. These mandatory minimum penalties send a strong message on the seriousness of gun related crime and violence and acts as a deterrent for criminals. It is very important that we deal with those who want to use firearms illegally in a very tough way, where the penalties are clear-cut. The entry of even a small number of illegal firearms into the Australian community can have a significant impact on the threat posed by the illicit market and, due to the enduring nature of firearms, a firearm can remain in that market for many years. It is the intent of the government to make sure that illegal firearms are removed. Obviously, those who have legal firearms which they want to use for legal purposes can continue to do so. Mandatory sentences will not apply to children as there is no minimum non-parole period.

The offences preserve a level of judicial discretion to allow courts to take into account mitigating factors when setting the period offenders spend in custody. In the lead-up to the 2013 election, the coalition undertook to implement tougher penalties for gun related crime. We are now following through on that promise. The introduction of this penalty is appropriate to ensure that high-culpability offenders receive sentences proportionate to the seriousness of their offending while providing the courts with discretion to set custodial periods consistent with the particular circumstances of the offender and the offence. Once again, this is the government honouring an election commitment in a meaningful way and honouring it in a way which is solely designed to keep the community safe. Especially with what we have seen recently when it comes to the illegal importation and use of firearms, it seems to be something which organised crime in particular focuses on, so it is only right that the government seeks to deal with the illegal use of firearms and their importation.

The other schedule of this bill that I would like to touch on is schedule 1, which is on illicit drug and precursor offences. Obviously I mentioned this a little bit earlier, but these new laws make two key changes to Commonwealth drug and precursor offences so that it is easier to successfully prosecute individuals who are knowingly engaged in large-scale drug and precursor importation. We know that organised crime and, in particular, illegal bikie gangs move into this space, sadly, more and more.

First, the laws will ensure that it is simpler to prosecute individuals who evade punishment because they manage their involvement in a drug operation in such a way that the prosecution cannot prove that they have the relevant level of knowledge. This, in particular, enables us to track those who are doing the organising but very skilfully trying to keep a distance in their organisational role from those who are actually carrying out the illegal drug operations. Secondly, they will simplify the offences for importing the chemicals used to manufacture illicit drugs. By making it easier to prosecute individuals for attempted drug offences, it is the hope of the government that we will once again be able to keep the scourge of drugs off the street. The first change will ensure that the same burden of proof applies to cases involving an attempted drug offence and in cases where an accused actually commits the offence. Under this change, where a person attempts to commit a serious drug or precursor offence, the prosecution will only need to prove that the person knew there was a risk that the substance involved was an illicit drug. This will make it simpler to prosecute individuals who are part of a larger drug enterprise but who deliberately ignore obvious signs about how their actions fit into the broader scheme.

This amendment is particularly important where a controlled operation is used as part of the drug investigation. Controlled operations are becoming more and more important as a policing tool for dealing with the sophisticated way in which criminals are seeking to import drugs or precursors. In controlled operations, law enforcement agencies may substitute an illicit drug with an inert substance. This helps to protect the community, but it means that those involved can only be charged with attempted offences.

In one case the police conducted a controlled operation for 80 kilograms of ice that was imported into Australia, to replace it with an inert substance. The accused received the consignment and was subsequently charged with an attempt to import a border controlled drug rather than of importing an illegal drug. We saw at the trial how the accused successfully exploited the greater onus of proof for the prosecution in attempt cases. He argued that while he knew that he was importing something illegal, he believed that he was helping to import counterfeit money and cheating cards for use in casinos, not drugs. He denied he knew that the consignment contained drugs or that he intended to import drugs and, therefore, could not be found guilty of an attempted importation offence. Had the controlled operation not occurred, the prosecution would have only had to prove that the accused was recklessly indifferent to the risk that the consignment contained illicit drugs.

As this example demonstrates, the legitimate actions of a law enforcement agency to reduce the potential harm from a drug importation should not make it more difficult to prosecute the people involved in the offence—and there are other means and other issues that we are addressing when it comes to this schedule 1.

Before I conclude I would like to touch briefly on the forced marriage arrangements. The coalition government is introducing new laws to parliament today to clarify what constitutes forced marriage and increase penalties for conduct that causes a person to enter into a forced marriage. As a consequence of the amendments, a child under the age of 16 is presumed incapable of consenting to marriage. I think everyone in this parliament would be supportive of that. When it comes to forced marriages, this is something that we, as a liberal democracy that believes strongly in individual personal rights and especially our ability and need to protect children, should be very clear in stating—that a child under the age of 16 is presumed incapable of consenting to marry. I think this is a very positive step.

Any person who engages in conduct that causes a person who does not understand the marriage ceremony to enter a marriage, such as through arranging or officiating over the marriage of a child, may be committing an offence. In addition, these changes, if successful, will increase the penalty for engaging in conduct to cause another person to enter into a forced marriage. The penalty for an aggravated forced marriage offence will be increased from a maximum of seven years imprisonment to a maximum of nine years imprisonment, reflecting community expectations of how we, as a society, need to make sure that we are providing proper protections and ensuring that children under the age of 16 are not being forced into things such as marriage.

It gives me great pleasure to be able to support this Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill. I think these are sensible changes to help tackle crime and make our community safer. Keeping our community safe is a fundamental principle that government needs to adhere to. Through this bill, we, as a government, are continuing to do that.

See this speech in context