Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8037 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 8), omit the item, substitute:

1 Subsections 360.2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

Basic offence

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct that constitutes an offence (the underlying offence) against a firearm law; and

(b) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:

  (i) among the States; or

  (ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and

(c) the primary element of the underlying offence involves:

  (i) the disposal of a firearm or a firearm part by the person; or

  (ii) the acquisition of a firearm or a firearm part by the person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.

Aggravated offence—disposing or acquiring 50 or more firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct on one or more occasions that constitutes an offence (the underlying offence) against a firearm law; and

(b) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:

  (i) among the States; or

  (ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and

(c) the primary element of the underlying offence involves:

  (i) the disposal of a firearm or a firearm part by the person; or

  (ii) the acquisition of a firearm or a firearm part by the person; and

(d) the conduct on any occasion, or on 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the disposal, or acquisition, by the person of:

  (i) 50 or more firearms; or

  (ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or

  (iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and

(e) if the disposal or acquisition of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (d) resulted from conduct on 2 or more occasions taken together—the occasions of conduct occurred during a 6 month period.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.

Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence

(2A) There is no fault element for any of the physical elements described in paragraphs (1) (a) and (2) (a), other than the fault elements (however described), if any, for the underlying offence.

(2B) To avoid doubt:

(a) in determining whether the conduct referred to in paragraph (1) (a) or (2) (a) constitutes the underlying offence, any defences or special liability provisions (however described) that apply in relation to the underlying offence have effect; and

(b) a person may be convicted of an offence against subsection (1) or (2) even if the person has not been convicted of the underlying offence; and

(c) for the purposes of subsection (2)—it is immaterial whether:

  (i) the underlying offence is the same on each occasion; or

  (ii) the conduct constituting the underlying offence is the same on each occasion; or

  (iii) the firearms or firearm parts to which the conduct relates are of the same kind.

(2C) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (b) and (c) and (2) (b), (c) and (e).

Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.

(2D) Strict liability applies to paragraph (2) (d).

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.

Definitions

1A Before subsection 360.3(1) of the Criminal Code

Insert:

Basic offence

1B Paragraph 360.3(1 ) ( a) of the Criminal Code

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) the person takes or sends a thing from one State or Territory to another State or Territory; and

(aa) the thing is a firearm or firearm part; and

(ab) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:

  (i) among the States; or

  (ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and

1C Subsection 360.3(1) of the Criminal Code (penalty)

Repeal the penalty, substitute:

Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.

1D After subsection 360.3(1) of the Criminal Code

Insert:

Aggravated offence—taking or sending 50 or more firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period

(1A) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person takes or sends (on one or more occasions) one or more things from one State or Territory to another State or Territory; and

(b) each thing is a firearm or firearm part; and

(c) the person does so in the course of trade or commerce:

  (i) among the States; or

  (ii) between a State and a Territory, or between 2 Territories; and

(d) the person does so intending that any of the firearms or parts will be disposed of in the other State or Territory (whether by the person or another); and

(e) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether:

  (i) the disposal of any of the firearms or parts; or

  (ii) any acquisition of any of the firearms or parts that results from the disposal;

would happen in circumstances that would constitute an offence against the firearm law of that other State or Territory; and

(f) the conduct on any occasion, or on 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the taking, or sending, by the person of:

  (i) 50 or more firearms; or

  (ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or

  (iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and

(g) if the taking or sending of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (f) resulted from conduct on 2 or more occasions taken together—the occasions of conduct occurred during a 6 month period.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.

Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence

(1B) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (ab) and (1A) (c) and (g).

Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.

(1C) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1A) (f).

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.

(1D) To avoid doubt, it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraphs (1A) (b) and (f) whether the firearms or firearm parts are of the same kind.

Definitions

1E Subsection 360.3(2) of the Criminal Code (at the end of the definition of firearm )

Add "or (1A) (e) (as the case requires)".

1F Subsection 360.3(2) of the Criminal Code (definition of firearm part )

Omit "(1) (c)", substitute "(1) (c) or (1A) (e) (as the case requires)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 17 to 21), omit the item, substitute:

3 Before section 360.4 of the Criminal Code

Insert:

360.3AB Double jeopardy and alternative verdicts

Double jeopardy

(1) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of an aggravated offence may not be convicted of a basic offence relating to the aggravated offence that is alleged to have been committed in the period during which the person was alleged to have committed the aggravated offence.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not prevent an alternative verdict under subsection (4).

(3) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of a basic offence relating to an aggravated offence may not be convicted of the aggravated offence if any of the occasions relied on as evidence of the commission of the aggravated offence includes the conduct that constituted the basic offence.

Alternative verdict—aggravated offence not proven

(4) If, on a trial for an aggravated offence, the trier of fact:

(a) is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the aggravated offence; but

(b) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty of the basic offence relating to the aggravated offence;

it may find the defendant not guilty of the aggravated offence but guilty of the basic offence, so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.

Definitions

(5) In this section:

aggravated offence means an offence against subsection 360.2(2) or 360.3(1A).

basic offence relating to an aggravated offence means:

(a) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 360.2(2)—an offence against subsection 360.2(1); or

(b) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 360.3(1A)—an offence against subsection 360.3(1).

3A Subsection 361.2(1) of the Criminal Code (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Basic offences

3B Subsection 361.2(1) of the Criminal Code (penalty)

Repeal the penalty, substitute:

Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.

3C Subsection 361.2(2) of the Criminal Code

Repeal the subsection.

3D Subsection 361.2(3) of the Criminal Code (heading)

Repeal the heading.

3E Subsection 361.2(3) of the Criminal Code (penalty)

Repeal the penalty, substitute:

Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.

3F Subsections 361.2(4) and (5) of the Criminal Code

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

Aggravated offence—importing 50 or more prohibited firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person imports (on one or more occasions) one or more things; and

(b) each thing is a firearm or firearm part; and

(c) the person imports each firearm or part with the intention of trafficking in the firearm or part; and

(d) importing each firearm or part was prohibited under the Customs Act 1901:

  (i) absolutely; or

  (ii) unless certain requirements were met; and

(e) if subparagraph (d) (ii) applies in relation to an occasion of importation—the person fails to meet any of those requirements; and

(f) any occasion of importation, or 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the importation by the person of:

  (i) 50 or more firearms; or

  (ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or

  (iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and

(g) if the importation of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (f) resulted from 2 or more occasions of importation taken together—the occasions of importation occurred during a 6 month period.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.

Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence

(5) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (d), (3) (d) and (4) (d) and (g).

Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.

(6) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (3) (e) and (4) (e) and (f).

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.

(7) To avoid doubt, it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraphs (4) (b) and (f) whether the firearms or firearm parts are of the same kind.

3G Subsection 361.3(1) of the Criminal Code (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Basic offences

3H Subsection 361.3(1) of the Criminal Code (penalty)

Repeal the penalty, substitute:

Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.

3J Subsection 361.3(2) of the Criminal Code

Repeal the subsection.

3K Subsection 361.3(3) of the Criminal Code (heading)

Repeal the heading.

3L Subsections 361.3(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code (penalty)

Repeal the penalty, substitute:

Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years or a fine of 5,000 penalty units, or both.

3M Subsections 361.3(5) and (6) of the Criminal Code

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

Aggravated offence—exporting or entering for export 50 or more prohibited firearms or firearm parts in 6 month period

(5) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person (on one or more occasions) exports, or enters for export from Australia, one or more things; and

(b) each thing is a firearm or firearm part; and

(c) the person exports, or enters for export, each firearm or part with the intention of trafficking in the firearm or part; and

(d) exporting, or entering for export, each firearm or part was prohibited under the Customs Act 1901:

  (i) absolutely; or

  (ii) unless certain requirements were met; and

(e) if subparagraph (d) (ii) applies in relation to an occasion of exportation or entry for export—the person fails to meet any of those requirements; and

(f) any occasion of exportation or entry for export, or 2 or more occasions taken together, results in the exportation or entry for export by the person of:

  (i) 50 or more firearms; or

  (ii) 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to constitute one or more firearms; or

  (iii) a combination of firearms and firearm parts such that the sum of the actual firearms and the firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more; and

(g) if the exportation or entry for export of the firearms or parts mentioned in paragraph (f) resulted from 2 or more occasions of exportation or entry for export taken together—the occasions of exportation or entry for export occurred during a 6 month period.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life or a fine of 7,500 penalty units, or both.

Provisions relating to basic offence and aggravated offence

(6) Absolute liability applies to paragraphs (1) (d), (3) (d), (4) (d) and (5) (d) and (g).

Note: For absolute liability, see section 6.2.

(7) Strict liability applies to paragraphs (3) (e), (4) (e) and (5) (e) and (f).

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1.

(8) To avoid doubt, it is immaterial for the purposes of paragraphs (5) (b) and (f) whether the firearms or firearm parts are of the same kind.

(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 7), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 Section 361.6 of the Criminal Code

Before "A person", insert "(1)".

7 At the end of section 361.6 of the Criminal Code

Add:

(2) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of an aggravated offence may not be convicted of a basic offence relating to the aggravated offence that is alleged to have been committed in the period during which the person was alleged to have committed the aggravated offence.

(3) However, subsection (2) does not prevent an alternative verdict under subsection (5).

(4) A person who has been convicted or acquitted of a basic offence relating to an aggravated offence may not be convicted of the aggravated offence if any of the occasions relied on as evidence of the commission of the aggravated offence includes the conduct that constituted the basic offence.

(5) If, on a trial for an aggravated offence, the trier of fact:

(a) is not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the aggravated offence; but

(b) is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he or she is guilty of the basic offence relating to the aggravated offence;

it may find the defendant not guilty of the aggravated offence but guilty of the basic offence, so long as the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.

(6) In this section:

aggravated offence means an offence against subsection 361.2(4) or 361.3(5).

basic offence relating to an aggravated offence means:

(a) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 361.2(4)—an offence against subsection 361.2(1) or (3); or

(b) if the aggravated offence is an offence against subsection 361.3(5)—an offence against subsection 361.3(1), (3) or (4).

I want to make some brief comments about these amendments. As flagged in my speech in the second reading debate, the opposition proposes to amend this bill to create aggravated offences for firearms trafficking. I have referenced previously the government's deep division and disunity on guns, and Labor is in the position of having to push for tougher rules against firearms trafficking.

This amendment would create aggravated offences for cross-border firearms trafficking and international firearms trafficking under divisions 360 and 361 of the Criminal Code. These offences would target the worst forms of firearms trafficking and attract a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, 7,500 penalty units or both, which would bring the maximum penalty for firearms trafficking up to the maximum penalty for drug trafficking. The opposition believes that the serious nature of supplying firearms and firearm parts to the illicit market warrants this significant penalty. The imperishable nature of firearms also means that illicit firearms remain a serious threat to the Australian community for many years. During this time they can all too easily fall into the hands of criminal gangs or terrorists.

Labor sought to pass these measures some five years ago as part of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012, a bill which passed the House with the support of the coalition, then in opposition, and the crossbench. Although the bill did not pass the Senate prior to the 2013 federal election, the Senate committee inquiry into the 2012 bill, conducted by both government and opposition senators, supported the introduction of such aggravated offences for firearms trafficking. As I said, these measures were introduced five years ago. It is disappointing that this work was not taken up by the coalition when they won government. With growing gun crime in our communities and continual reports of mass firearms trafficking through the media and otherwise, we believe that toughening our firearms trafficking laws as laid out in the amendments is appropriate.

The offences would capture trafficking of 50 or more firearms, 50 or more firearm parts that might be used to make one or more firearms, or a combination of both firearms and parts such that the sum of actual firearms and firearms that might be constituted by the parts is 50 or more. This could occur all on one occasion or on two or more occasions. This will target firearms trafficking enterprises engaged in the mass distribution and exchange of firearms. The threshold quantity of 50 or more firearms or firearm parts for the aggravated offences is identical to that in the bill that Labor introduced in 2012. It is a threshold quantity significantly higher than those in existing state or territory offences. That is because the aggravated offences attract a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, which is obviously a very serious penalty. Basic offences for firearms trafficking will still apply to trafficking which does not reach this threshold, which attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years, 5,000 penalty units or both.

As I referenced earlier today, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates there are up to 600,000 illegal guns in our community. Ten thousand of these are predicted to be handguns, which, of course, are the weapon of choice for many criminal elements. The amendments that the opposition is proposing will send a strong message about the seriousness with which the parliament views firearms trafficking and allow our courts to lock up the worst traffickers for life. I commend the amendments to the chamber.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the attempt to characterise the Labor Party 's position as a strong one, this is a weaker position than the government's. Senator Wong has indicated that she opposes mandatory minimum sentences and seeks to offer an alternative, and that is the creation of a circumstance of aggravation with a higher maximum sentence. There is no question whatsoever that prescribing mandatory minimum sentences is a much clearer indication of the parliament's view of the seriousness of an offence than creating a new, aggravated offence, particularly in view of the fact that courts, in sentencing, already take into account circumstances of aggravation when determining where within the sentencing range a particular penalty of imprisonment should be imposed. So Labor's attempt to portray themselves as taking a tough position will convince no-one. What Senator Wong is in fact doing is seeking to weaken the position by opposing the one effective measure, the one effective signal, that this parliament can send, and that is a mandatory minimum sentence so that no gun-trafficking offender will escape a term of imprisonment. That is a strong message. Anything less than that is a weaker message.

I appreciate that the Labor Party support the principles of this legislation. I accept that they take a serious view of the nature of the crime, that overall they are supportive, and that they will get their amendment passed given the state of the numbers in the Senate on this issue. But I regret to say that what the Senate, if it passes Senator Wong's amendment, will have done will have been to settle for a weaker message than the government would wish to see.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am of two minds here. I support Senator Wong and her appeal to get the maximum sentence increased to 30 years. If our magistrates and judges were doing their jobs properly, we would not need any minimum sentences. We see, in court after court, maximum sentences where state governments are bowing to popular pressure and increasing maximum sentences, but still you are seeing people walk free with suspended sentences, no sentences, short jail terms or what. On the other hand, I agree with the Attorney-General when he says that with the five-year minimum no drug trafficker will escape jail.

You would assume in this day and age—in this post 9/11 climate, and after the Lindt Cafe siege et cetera—that no judge would ever in Australia let a gun trafficker walk free with no jail. But, sadly, some of our judges and some of our courts are such bleeding hearts about such issues that it would not surprise me, and that is why I will be supporting the government today.

The CHAIR: Senator Kakoschke-Moore.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am just seeking your guidance for a moment. I have an amendment to Labor's amendments that we are debating at the moment. Should I move those now or wait until the question has been put on Labor's amendments on sheet 8037?

The CHAIR: If you want to move an amendment to the amendments that are being put by Senator Wong on behalf of the Labor Party, you need to do that now.

Thank you. On behalf of the Nick Xenophon Team, I seek leave to move amendments to the amendments proposed by the opposition on sheet 8037.

Leave granted.

On behalf of the Nick Xenophon Team, I move amendments (3) to (8) on sheet 8051:

AMENDMENTS TO OPPOSITION AMENDMENTS [SHEET 8037]

(3) Amendment (1), item 1, subsection 360.2(1), omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".

(4) Amendment (1), item 1C, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".

(5) Amendment (2), item 3B, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".

(6) Amendment (2), item 3E, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".

(7) Amendment (2), item 3H, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".

(8) Amendment (2), item 3L, omit "20 years", substitute "30 years".

The Nick Xenophon Team believes that increasing the maximum penalty for this offence sends a decisive message to both the community and potential offenders that trafficking illegal firearms is not acceptable and that the consequences for doing so will entail harsher penalties.

The CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Brandis.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate that the government will be supporting the Nick Xenophon Team's amendments. The Nick Xenophon Team's amendments do strengthen the legislation. We have no objection to that. Our opposition is to the weakening of the legislation that the Labor Party is trying to bring about. But, because of the effect of your amendment, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, and having regard to the considerations you and Senator Hinch referred to, we think this is a good proposal and we support it.

The CHAIR: Senator Rhiannon.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. The Greens do support Labor's amendments to introduce new offences to manage the new offences that are encapsulated in the bill. I note that the minister's response really just relied on saying 'Labor has a weaker positon', without really backing that up. I think this is actually an important debate when we come to deal with the issue of mandatory sentencing. It is worth reflecting on and giving that some time, because it is an important issue when it comes to delivering fair justice in our society.

But, first off, just on mandatory sentences, this is something that the Greens have long had concerns about, because they take the power away from the judge, the person best placed to pass a sentence. Mandatory sentences are not effective at deterring crime. I would like to again share some advice from experts in the field because, as I said, it is a very important matter and when we have the Attorney-General actually arguing for mandatory sentencing, I think it is worth fleshing this out.

More police powers are rarely the right answer to problems. We have seen that in New South Wales with a very strong law and order approach from Labor, Liberal and National parties over the years. We are seeing it with the failure of terrorist laws that take a similar approach. I just want to put on the record yet again that the Greens—while we are supporting Labor amendments, really there is a major failure with this legislation overall in its approach to public safety when it comes to firearms. We need a national firearms agreement that works and that is strengthened. We still do not have that national firearms integration system. We still cannot trace firearms from the cradle to the grave.

We hear from the coalition that this is about public safety. But, unless we have the means to be able to track firearms that are already in this country, the hypocrisy of the government talking about their commitments is really on display. Because this is also a debate about one's position on mandatory sentencing, it is worth noting what some of the experts have said on this. The Law Council has voiced its unconditional opposition to mandatory sentencing as a penalty for any criminal offence on the basis that it raises the potential for unintended consequences. They have set that out in detail in many documents over the years. The Law Council goes on in their submission on this bill to say that imposing mandatory minimum imprisonment sentences is contrary to other sentencing provisions which judges apply. They point out that section 17A of the Crimes Act provides that a sentencing court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment unless, having considered all other sentences, it is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in the circumstances.

All that ability—the nuances that judges need in determining the human aspect of it, the circumstances that cannot be encapsulated in law—is lost if you go down the path of mandatory sentencing. That is why I wanted to speak further on this, because it is a very, very serious move that the government is attempting to use here, again just to bang the drum that they are doing something about firearm violence when they are not addressing the main game.

To stay with some of the advice from experts on this issue, it is also worth noting that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has been very informative on mandatory minimum penalties reducing or deterring the importation of illegal firearms. This is a quote from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

… if the desired outcome is to reduce the availability of illegal firearms in Australian communities the focus needs be on strategies which increase the likelihood that a firearms trafficker will be caught. Those strategies should focus on continuing to enhance our border agencies' capabilities to detect and investigate illicit firearm trafficking at the border.

Mandatory sentencing of illicit firearms traffickers … won't deliver the desired results.

It is very emphatic. The people who work in this field—and the Attorney-General would clearly know this—have rejected this approach time and time again. Considering the strength of the body of evidence from experts that mandatory sentencing does not work, I would like to ask the Attorney-General why he is persisting to use this discredited approach to firearm crimes. Why does he persist? I am interested in your response, Attorney-General.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because, Senator Rhiannon, it is not a discredited approach. If you knew anything about this area, you would know that among criminologists and penologists there is a debate about the efficacy of various sentencing models and sentencing tariffs. There are some criminologists and penologists who agree with you, but, like those who invoke the language of experts in this chamber so commonly do, you entirely disregard the very relevant fact that there is a vigorous debate in that discipline among scholars and among experts. There are some who agree with you and there are others who vigorously disagree with you, but I think you will find, Senator Rhiannon, that among those who practise in the criminal courts and among judges who conduct criminal proceedings the overwhelming weight of opinion is that in appropriate cases, particularly in cases of premeditation such as trafficking in arms—which is classically an offence of premeditation rather than an offence which may be committed by an individual on impulse or in the heat of the moment—the prospect of an inevitable jail term does have a measurable deterrent effect. So, please, Senator Rhiannon, do not be so intellectually dishonest as to say, 'The experts say this,' when the fact is that there is a vigorous debate among scholars and practitioners. But the preponderant view is that in relation particularly to offences of premeditation the inevitability of a jail term does have a deterrent effect.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Attorney-General, you really should not verbal me. I have not ignored the debate; I have not ignored it at all.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't even refer to it!

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge your interjection. All I have done is inject into this debate some balance, because you should not be imputing to me exactly what you have done. You are the one who, in the context of advancing your arguments, has been banging the drum about mandatory sentencing rather than acknowledging that there are a range of opinions here. All I was doing was injecting into the debate some of the views that you have failed to bring into this discussion. Again you fall back on attacks and personal abuse, rather than giving the evidence that surely you should be. If you say that there is this body of experts who support mandatory sentencing, what is the evidence that that system works? All I was doing was injecting the other side, which is what you failed to do.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have barely spoken in the debate, so how you can say that is beyond me.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Precisely—you have given further weight to your failure in how you have prosecuted the case. You come in here and attack me about being unbalanced, which is precisely how you have approached this.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (3) to (8) on sheet 8051, moved by Senator Kakoschke-Moore, which seek to amend the amendments as put by Senator Wong on sheet 8037, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments, as amended, on sheet 8037 and 8051, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill, as amended, stand as printed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8036:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 to 16), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, items 4 and 5, page 3 (line 22) to page 4 (line 7), to be opposed.

I do not propose to re-traverse the argument in relation to these amendments. I think I canvassed it in detail in my speech on the second reading.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These amendments relate to the removal of the mandatory minimum sentence provision. The government has put its position in relation to that. I will not canvass the arguments either. The amendments do weaken the legislation. Given the point of the legislation is to send a very strong signal to firearms traffickers, that is a great shame. The government will be opposing these two opposition amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that items 2, 4 and 5 on schedule 1 stand as printed.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 18:43 to 19:43