Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill. The coalition will be supporting this bill, and we will facilitate its passage through the parliament.

There are three schedules to this bill. Schedule 1 is about parole. It makes technical amendments to clarify the Attorney-General's decision-making powers in relation to parole under part 1B of the Crimes Act. At present, there is a mandatory requirement for the Attorney-General to make a parole decision in relation to a federal sentence before the end of a non-parole period. However, sometimes it is impossible to meet this obligation. This can happen in two circumstances. First, it can happen when an offender is eligible for parole immediately following sentencing because of time already served while held on remand. Second, it can happen when an offender's sentence is reduced on appeal. When this happens, the legislation is unclear on what the Attorney's obligations are and on the legal consequences that flow from the inability to make a parole decision within the stipulated time frame. This schedule puts it beyond doubt that the Attorney can still make a decision to grant or refuse parole in these cases.

Schedule 2 of the bill is about drug importation. It changes the way we make regulations to list substances as border-controlled plants, drugs and precursors. Currently, to deal effectively with drug importation, we need appropriate powers under the Criminal Code and the Customs Act and appropriate cross-references under the Defence Force Discipline Act. The changes to the regulation-making powers allow substances to be listed in a consistent and flexible way that lines up across all three acts. Importantly, the changes also allow the government to say that some substances are only treated as serious drugs or precursors for specific and narrowly-defined purposes.

Specifically the provisions of schedule 2 allow a substance to be listed as a border-controlled plant, drug or precursor only in relation to specific offences in part 9.1 of the Criminal Code or elements of those offences. As we understand it, the government's intent is to ensure that we are able to deal effectively with dual-use precursors. These are substances which have a legitimate use but can also be turned into illegal drugs. An example is 1,4-butanediol, which has a range of legitimate uses as a solvent and in the manufacture of plastics. However, it is also a precursor and substitute for the drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, also known as GHB or liquid ecstasy. These chemicals are imported legitimately under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019, but it is clear that more action is needed to ensure that the import of these dual-use precursors is effectively disrupted at the border.

We understand that the government intends to use these amended regulation-making powers to make targeted regulations that line up with the licensing system under the Industrial Chemicals Act. The government has advised the coalition that it intends to use these regulation-making powers to ensure that unlawful imports are treated as an offence under the Criminal Code, but, by targeting the regulations appropriately, it will ensure it does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate actions of licensed businesses that follow the rules. The coalition believes this is a sensible amendment that allows our drug laws to keep up with changes to the importation of precursors by serious and organised crime groups.

Schedule 3 of the bill deals with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the ACIC. The ACIC is one of our premier organisations that brings together law enforcement, national security policy and regulatory agencies to combat serious and organised crime. The provisions of this schedule relate to technical processes of the ACIC board and follow changes commenced under the coalition and continued by Labor in government. These technical and validation provisions preserve the status quo and ensure there is no legal doubt about decision-making processes undertaken by the ACIC, so that it can continue to combat serious and organised crime. I commend the bill to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, the government, Labor, promised transparency, and is coming to the House with legislation that affects criminal or criminal related law that has retrospective effect, and is asking the House to debate it and vote on it in less than a day. This government promised transparency, and it's delivering contempt.

When legislation is brought to this place—especially legislation that has retrospective effect—that deals with criminal matters, that is a very serious piece of legislation. Every member of this parliament is entitled to the time to consider that legislation and decide whether to support it or not, or whether to seek amendments to it. We know that, when you have rushed legislation, especially when it is dealing with criminal matters, there is a huge potential for unintended consequences.

What we've got here is a piece of legislation, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023, that was introduced yesterday. The Greens were briefed on it this morning for the first time, and now, before noon, we are being asked to vote on it—without a chance to go and seek advice or to have it go through the inquiry process, or to consider whether to make any amendments, or to consider whether to support it or oppose it.

What we do have in the limited time that we've had to consider this is an explanatory memorandum that, amongst other things, says that what this bill is going to do is operate as far back as 2013 to retrospectively validate actions of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission that, by implication, may be illegal. In other words, what this bill has been inviting us to do in the time that we've had to consider it is draw an implication that unlawful action potentially involving government agencies has been taking place in the criminal sphere for a period of time. If that is the case, the Attorney should tell us about it. If there's a wrong that is sought to be remedied by this bill, then tell us what has happened.

Has a government agency been acting in a way that is potentially unlawful? Is the government in receipt of advice that potentially unlawful activity has been happening? If that is the case, we are entitled to know about it. That may go some way towards persuading people to do it. It may go some way towards raising some questions about whether further amendments are required. It may go some way towards asking us whether there are questions about how intelligence or information has been gathered. At the moment we're in the dark, and a Labor government that has promised us transparency shouldn't have us in the dark. This is serious. When we're being asked to pass retrospective legislation, firstly, we should know why and, secondly, we should have the chance to go and get advice about it.

I imagine the Attorney-General may rise to speak about this. It's an opportunity to explain whether it's the case that the government is now in receipt of advice that something wrong has been happening. Is it the case that there are real question marks over past practices of any government agency? Asking this parliament to pass retrospective legislation is a very serious thing, and we want to know why we're being asked to do it. Secondly, explain why we're being asked to do it with less than 24 hours to consider our position.

Every member of this place has the right to scrutinise legislation, but that is especially important for those of us who sit on the crossbench. It may well be that the government briefed the opposition on this some time ago and that the opposition knows exactly what this is all about. That may well be the case. But that's not what the government has done, certainly, with the Greens. The briefing that we've received on it has raised questions that I'm raising here in this place today, so we're just not in a position to be able to say whether we support the legislation, and we shouldn't be put in this position.

No member of this parliament should be put in the position of being asked to vote on retrospective legislation that affects a government agency without being told why or without being given the chance to consider it. And to the Attorney I say again: if you want to get all of the parliament on board, brief us with enough time to consider the legislation and you may well then get unanimous passage of this legislation; I just don't know. But what we have to say no to is this process that we just have to take at face value—that when the government says something is urgent it is urgent and that when the government says something is technical it is technical.

The two-party system is in decline in this country. Labor's vote went backwards at the election. Less than a third of the country voted for the government, just a bit more than a third voted for the opposition and a third voted for someone else. Why? It is because they want more transparency and integrity in government. That starts with how this place works. There's a reason that we've got the biggest crossbench that you've ever seen—people want to understand what governments are doing, and people want to understand what deals the Liberal and Labor parties are striking. They want scrutiny of it, and they're entitled to it. There can be no more serious time to bring that scrutiny than when we're being asked to pass retrospective legislation.

So I make the point that we've not been presented with a case for urgency that says why the usual processes should be circumvented. For people who aren't as familiar with this place, the usual process is: a bill gets introduced; you get time to take it back to your colleagues, to your party room, to your caucus, and have a discussion about it; and you've got time to get advice from experts and work out whether you want to support it, vote against it or try and seek some amendments to it. Today, Labor has deprived us of that opportunity, intentionally. They have intentionally deprived us of the opportunity to sit down together as Greens to spend at least 24 hours getting our heads around the legislation, asking questions, seeking advice and having the capacity to talk about amendments. It has been rushed, with no basis for urgency, and we've just been asked to take it at face value.

If there's some suggestion—and I just don't know, because the government's not being transparent about this—that agencies have done something wrong, then tell us. If there's some suggestion, then tell us so that we can understand what we're voting on. If there's some urgent reason why retrospective legislation has to be passed, then tell us. If there's some reason why this had to be kept secret from the crossbench members of the parliament until yesterday, then tell us. Tell us why these had to be kept secret until yesterday, because I'm sure this bill wasn't drafted yesterday morning. It was introduced yesterday without any prior briefing about what is required. We were briefed this morning and then just asked to accept that it's all technical and not to worry about it. That is not the role of this parliament. The role of this parliament is not to just accept everything the executive government says. I know that, when Labor was in opposition, they railed against the coalition doing this kind of thing. They railed against legislation being rammed through that had serious consequences and potential unintended effects. Now that they're in government, they're just doing exactly the same. They're just doing exactly the same.

So we can't support this bill's passage through the House, and we reserve our position in the Senate. I hope that the government can put this through the usual processes where we can have a look at it. Who knows? We may end up supporting it. In the time that we've had available to look at it—I've referred to the explanatory memorandum—in the time that we've had available to digest it, it has raised questions. It raises questions. I'll conclude on this: when we're talking about retrospective legislation in the criminal sphere, why is it that the bar is all of a sudden lowered now that Labor's in government and it's okay to rush a bill with retrospective application in a criminal sphere through, without going through the usual processes?

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The bill will update, improve and clarify the intended operation of key provisions in the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. These amendments are required to support the proper administration of justice and to combat serious and organised crime. Just to remind honourable members, as I said in introducing this legislation, in the last year for which accurate statistics are available, 2020-21, the Australian Institute of Criminology has estimated that serious and organised crime cost the Australian community over $60 billion. Serious and organised crime is a major threat to our country. It's the reason why the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission was established. It's the reason why the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission continues to work every day with state and territory police forces and with the Australian Federal Police to undertake the vital work that they have in combating serious and organised crime.

The amendments to the Crimes Act in schedule 1 of the bill will provide certainty that the Attorney-General has unambiguous authority to make parole order decisions for federal offenders even if an offender's non-parole period has expired. It's a simple but useful change to the Crimes Act.

The amendments in schedule 2 of the bill will support law enforcement agencies to manage the threat of serious and organised crime by enhancing import controls on chemicals that are commonly used by serious and organised crime groups to manufacture illicit drugs. These amendments will ensure that the importation of these substances by entities not registered with the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme will be subject to appropriate criminal penalties and will be subject to seizure by the Australian Border Force.

Finally, the amendments in schedule 3 will ensure that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission can continue to undertake its vital statutory function to combat serious and organised crime in Australia and keep the Australian community safe.

I would say to the member for Melbourne that it is standard practice for governments to make amendments to acts such as this to ensure that agencies can undertake their vital statutory functions.

In conclusion, the Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 2) Bill 2023 will assist law enforcement and the intelligence agencies in their vital work of protecting the Australian community.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Attorney-General. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.