Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in continuation of my remarks with respect to this piece of legislation, the Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021. At the commencement of my remarks, I referred to the very troubling case of a Mr Brookman, who was convicted under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act for services he provided in Syria. He was convicted of those offences and sentenced on 23 June 2021, but there were 342 emergency management days of remissions immediately deducted from his sentence, which resulted in Mr Brookman being immediately released. It wasn't until 6 July 2021, some 13 days later, that an interim control order could be imposed with regard to Mr Brookman to mitigate the risk that Mr Brookman, given his past offending, represented to the community. I think that example brings into stark relief the issues this bill is seeking to address.

There are five further matters I want to deal with in the continuation of my contribution. The first is for this place to note that we're talking here about federal offences and persons convicted under federal offences. The reality of the situation is that this issue of remission arising from so-called emergency management days only occurs in Victoria, so there is an inequality in the application of those remission days across the country. I put it to you, Madam Acting Deputy President Askew, convictions under those federal offences, the application of remission should not be dependent upon which state jurisdiction a particular prisoner is in custody.

The second point I want to make is around the uncertainty that the use of emergency management days presents with release dates. We saw that in stark relief in the case of Mr Brookman with the uncertainty which is presented when we have the application of these emergency management days.

The third point I want to make is the 342 emergency management days which were remitted off the head sentence of Mr Brookman were, in fact, arising out of the COVID pandemic emergency. The COVID pandemic emergency and the impact it had on Mr Brookman whilst in remand was considered by the sentencing judge, so the application of an additional 342 emergency management days represents a doubling up of that being considered in the sentence to be served by Mr Brookman. It wasn't as if the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was not considered; it was, in fact, considered by the sentencing judge and in her sentencing remarks. But the reality was there was no appreciation at the time of sentencing that these 342 emergency management days would be taken off the sentence.

Previous speakers, in particular Senator Thorpe, referred to the retrospective nature of the legislation. This was a very good point to raise because the practice is and the practice should always be that, as a general principle, legislation should not seek to have retrospective effect in matters such as this. However, that is a general principle and it was carefully considered by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when we conducted our review of the legislation. Paragraph 2.31 of our report says:

The committee draws to the Commonwealth government's attention concerns raised during the course of this inquiry about the retrospective application of the bill. The committee notes, however, that on balance—

And these matters are always a question of balance.

these concerns do not outweigh the clear advantages associated with ensuring greater certainty that sentencing decisions for federal offenders are not reduced or amended. This is particularly the case when these offenders continue to pose a serious risk to the community. Moreover, the committee notes that the bill would not authorise the removal of remissions granted to offenders who have already been released from custody.

Those are two key points for the consideration of this chamber of the retroactive application of the bill. Firstly, it doesn't seek to impose retroactive application to those who have already been released. Secondly, with respect to those who have not been released, this chamber has a duty, an obligation in my view, to balance the retroactive application of the bill on the one hand with the threat to community on the other. In my view, in this case, as an exception to the general rule, the balance falls in favour of the passage of this bill to ensure that we don't have any more cases such as Mr Brookman, who was convicted for performing so-called services in Syria, sentenced to six years and eight months in prison only to find that, with the application of 342 emergency management days of remission, he was immediately released into the community without the federal government having an opportunity to seek an appropriate control order. With that, I commend this bill to the chamber.