Page 1111 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 28 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill makes a number of changes to a series of acts. We have considered each of them and, although they are small changes, I think that in many ways they are important changes. I will go through them in part. I think that they are sensible and non-controversial.
There is one change, though, with regard to association laws, which I think is worth further discussion. The government and others in the community have said that we cannot possibly breach the Human Rights Act on freedom of association. This bill we are debating today, presented by the government, does exactly that. It is somewhat hypocritical that the government that has been arguing against anti-association laws with regard to dealing with outlaw motorcycle gangs is today, in this place, going to argue for anti-association laws. I know that the Attorney-General is aware of this contradiction, but it is an important point to make.
With regard to the other changes, there are amendments to the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act so that police officers can apply for an immediate entry and search warrant. Currently, police can seek an immediate warrant only to check an offender’s personal details. The amendments would allow for warrants to investigate an offender’s breach of a prohibition order. The example provided is where an offender who is suspected of visiting schools, in breach of a court order, could be more quickly investigated. This looks like a good amendment, and we support it.
There is an amendment to the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005. The amendment in this bill states that parole can be cancelled if a crime is committed while on parole but clarifies that the offence itself, and not just the conviction, has to occur during the parole period. This is a response to recommendation No 39 of the 2015 inquiry into sentencing by the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety. We will be supporting that amendment. I recall that the inquiry in question also called for review of the Bail Act, which the government has not supported; I think that broader review would have been useful so that some more good amendments like this one could have been provided.
There are changes to the Criminal Code 2002 which mean that if a court finds that the offence of aggravated burglary or aggravated robbery has not been proven, but a burglary or robbery has, the court can find the defendant guilty of the lesser offence. This is a sensible amendment that we also support.
There are a number of changes to the Firearms Act, including the ability for firearms seized under any territory law to be disposed of by the courts; to clarify that it is an offence to be under the influence of alcohol or a drug when a person has physical possession of a firearm, not just in the same building; and to clarify that a firearms dealer can test a firearm on a property other than the registered premises. All of these are reasonable changes, and we support them.
Just going to the association laws, this bill makes changes to the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005. These changes expand the existing powers of a court to make non-association and place restriction orders. As an important point—and this was covered in part during annual report hearings—there are many non-association laws
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video