Bills Digest no. 74 2015–16
PDF version [583KB]
WARNING: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.
Cat Barker, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section
1 February 2016
Contents
Purpose
of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Date introduced: 2
December 2015
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Justice
Commencement: Sections 1–3
will commence on Royal Assent. Schedule 1 will commence the day after
Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they
become Acts, which can be found at the ComLaw
website.
The purpose of the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms
Trafficking) Bill 2015 (the Bill) is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995
(the Act) to increase the maximum penalties, and introduce mandatory minimum
penalties, for firearms trafficking offences.[1]
Existing offences and penalties
Part 9.4 of the Act contains two sets of offences for
firearms trafficking.
Division 360 sets out offences of cross-border
firearms trafficking that apply to trafficking between one Australian state
or territory and another (trafficking within state borders is covered by state
law). The offences of cross-border disposal or acquisition of a firearm or
firearm part, and taking or sending a firearm part across (domestic) borders, both
carry maximum penalties of 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 2,500
penalty units.[2]
Division 361 sets out offences of international
firearms trafficking that apply to trafficking prohibited firearms or
firearm parts into or out of Australia. The same maximum penalties apply as for
cross-border trafficking.[3]
Previous recent attempts to strengthen
penalties for firearms trafficking
Former Labor Government
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and
Other Measures) Bill 2012 would have left penalties for the existing offences
unchanged, but introduced aggravated offences for dealing in 50 or more
firearms or firearm parts (or a combination thereof) on a single occasion or
two or more occasions during a six month period, with a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment.[4]
The Bill was passed by the House of Representatives and supported by the then
Opposition, but lapsed ahead of the 2013 federal election.[5]
Current Government
The Bill will be the third time the Government has sought
to legislate mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for
firearms trafficking offences.
The Coalition’s policy to tackle crime included a
commitment to introduce mandatory minimum penalties of five years imprisonment
for firearm trafficking.[6]
Provisions to that effect were included in the Crimes Legislation Amendment
(Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014 (2014 Bill, introduced
17 July 2014) and the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences
and Other Measures) Bill 2015 (CLA Bill 2015, introduced
19 March 2015).[7]
Neither of those Bills included any amendment to the maximum penalties.
While both Bills were passed and became Acts, in each case
this only occurred following amendments in the Senate that removed the
provisions that would have introduced mandatory minimum sentences.[8]
Senate Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Legislation Committee
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 February 2016.
Details of the inquiry are at the inquiry
homepage.[9]
The Committee also considered the 2014 Bill and the CLA
Bill 2015.
The majority of the Committee recommended changes to the
Explanatory Memorandum for the 2014 Bill, but not the Bill itself.[10]
Those changes were reflected in the Explanatory Memorandum to the CLA
Bill 2015 and that for the current Bill.[11]
The majority of the Committee made no recommendation in
relation to the mandatory sentencing provisions in its report on the CLA
Bill 2015.[12]
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had
not reported on the Bill as at the date of publication of this Digest.
The Committee considered mandatory minimum penalties for
firearms trafficking in the context of the 2014 Bill and the CLA
Bill 2015. On both occasions it noted the provisions ‘may be considered to
trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties’, but left the question of
their appropriateness to the Senate as a whole.[13]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR)
had not reported on the Bill as at the date of publication of this Digest.
The PJCHR considered mandatory minimum penalties for
firearms trafficking in the context of the 2014 Bill and the CLA
Bill 2015. On both occasions it recommended an amendment to make it clear
on the face of the legislation that the mandatory minimum sentence was not
intended as a ‘sentencing guidepost’, and that there could be significant
differences between the total sentence and the non-parole period imposed.[14]
The recommendation was made on the basis of ‘minimising the potential for disproportionate
sentences that may be incompatible with the right not to be arbitrarily
detained and the right to a fair trial’.[15]
That recommendation has not been taken up in the Bill.
The Australian Labor Party moved the amendment that
removed the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions from the 2014 Bill,
and voted for the Greens amendment that removed them from the CLA Bill 2015.[16]
Labor continues to oppose mandatory minimum sentencing for firearms trafficking.
In relation to the Bill, the Shadow Minister for Justice stated that Labor
‘note[d] these provisions have already been considered and rejected by
Parliament twice and that the government has failed to justify the need for
such provisions’.[17]
The Australian Greens voted for the Labor amendment to the
2014 Bill and moved the amendment to the CLA Bill 2015.[18]
The Greens had not commented publicly on the Bill as at the date of publication
of this Digest, but could be expected to again oppose the provisions relating
to mandatory minimum sentences.
Family First Senator Bob Day, Motoring Enthusiast Senator
Ricky Muir and Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie have previously voted in
favour of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences.[19]
Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm and Independent
Senator Nick Xenophon have previously voted against mandatory minimum sentences
for firearms offences.[20]
Senators Zhenya Wang and Glenn Lazarus, then both with the
Palmer United Party, voted in favour of mandatory minimum sentences in
February 2015 (2014 Bill).[21]
In August 2015 (CLA Bill 2015), by which time Senator Lazarus was an
Independent, both Senators voted against mandatory minimum sentences.[22]
Increased maximum penalties
The proposed doubling of the maximum penalties for
firearms trafficking is supported by the Law Council of Australia (LCA), but
opposed by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the NSW Council
for Civil Liberties (NSW CCL).[23]
Their reasons are set out in the ‘Key issues and provisions’ section of this
Digest.
Mandatory minimum sentences
Consistent with the reaction to the previous two Bills, legal,
human rights and civil liberties organisations have expressed their opposition
to the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences in their submissions to the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee’s inquiry into
the Bill.[24]
Their reasons are set out in the ‘Key issues and provisions’ section of this
Digest.
Dr John Coyne (of the Australian Strategic Policy
Institute) strongly supports the provisions and considers that while mandatory
minimum sentences ‘do not always have a deterrent effect, they are taken into
consideration by some in the planning of criminal activities’.[25]
This is somewhat different to the view he expressed in the context of the CLA
Bill 2015, when he stated the same measure ‘won’t reduce or
deter the importation of illicit firearms.[26]
The Bill will not impact Government revenue.[27]
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[28]
As noted above, the PJCHR has questioned the compatibility
of mandatory minimum penalties with the right not to be arbitrarily detained
and the right to a fair trial. Several stakeholders, including the AHRC,
expressed the same concerns.[29]
The Bill would make two changes to the penalties for the
offences of cross-border firearms trafficking and international firearms
trafficking (in Divisions 360 and 361 of the Act respectively). It
would double the maximum penalty that may be imposed, and introduce mandatory
minimum sentences. The Minister for Justice stated:
The combination of mandatory minimum penalties and increased
maximum penalties will send the strongest possible message to the community
that the illegal trafficking of firearms will not be tolerated and will act as
a strong disincentive for people seeking to illegally import firearms and gun parts
into Australia.[30]
Increased maximum penalties
Items 1 and 3 would double the
maximum penalties for the offences in Divisions 360 and 361 of the
Act respectively to 20 years imprisonment and/or a fine of 5,000 penalty
units.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the increase is
required to ensure the maximum penalty is ‘adequate to deter and punish the
worst case offence’ and ‘address the clear and serious social and systemic
harms associated with [the illicit firearms] trade’.[31]
The LCA supports the proposed increase. It considers it is
appropriate when considered in light of the penalties that apply to state and
territory firearms-related offences and community concerns about firearms
trafficking. The LCA also noted that the review of the 2014 Martin Place Siege
‘highlighted the potentially serious consequences of illegal firearms dealing’.[32]
The AHRC and the NSW CCL oppose the measure, with
both noting that the Government has not identified any instances where the
sentences imposed for Commonwealth firearms offences have been insufficient.[33]
The AHRC further points out that when questioned on the matter in 2014, the
Attorney-General’s Department stated it was not aware of any such cases.[34]
The AHRC also takes a different view to the LCA on consistency with penalties
for state and territory firearms offences.[35]
However, its analysis of penalties was restricted to offences relating to
unauthorised sale or purchase of firearms and did not take account of specific
offences in place for firearms trafficking or the higher penalties that apply
to aggravated offences.[36]
Mandatory minimum sentences
Item 2 would insert proposed
section 360.3A to introduce mandatory minimum penalties of five years
imprisonment for the offences in Division 360 of the Act. The mandatory
minimum would not apply where it can be established on the balance of
probabilities that the person was under the age of 18 when the offence was
committed. Item 4 would insert proposed section 361.5,
which would apply the same way to the offences in Division 361 of the Act.
The amendments would not introduce mandatory minimum
non-parole periods.
Mandatory minimum penalties have rarely been applied to
Commonwealth offences and when they have been used[37],
they have attracted criticism.[38]
As noted in the ‘Position of major interest groups’
section of this Digest, this measure is opposed by a range of legal, human
rights and civil liberties organisations. Those organisations are opposed to
this measure in particular, and mandatory sentencing in general, on the grounds
that:
- it
contravenes the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby it is for the
judiciary to determine appropriate punishment [39]
- there
is little if any evidence that it works to reduce or deter crime[40]
- it
can lead to unjust or unduly harsh sentences[41]
- it
is inconsistent with Australia’s human rights obligations, particularly
concerning arbitrary detention and ability to appeal sentences[42]
- it
can have counter-productive impacts, such as reducing the incentive for
offenders to plead guilty (thereby using additional resources in the justice
system); dissuading juries from convicting people where they consider the
minimum punishment too harsh; potentially increasing recidivism by
inappropriately placing people in prison, which can serve as a learning
environment for crime; and undermining community confidence in the justice
system and[43]
- it
tends to impact disproportionately on members of vulnerable groups within
society.[44]
Noting that some of these concerns are mitigated by the
fact that the proposed provisions would not introduce mandatory minimum
non-parole periods, the AHRC points out that nonetheless:
The imposition of an inappropriately high head sentence is
not without consequences. To take only one example, if a person is sentenced to
a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more but is given a substantially
shorter non‑parole period the person will still be taken to have a
‘substantial criminal record’ and will not pass the ‘character test’ under s
501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This may result in the person’s
visa being cancelled or an application for a visa being refused.[45]
Some of the arguments stakeholders have made against this
proposed measure are also reflected in the Government’s own Guide to Framing
Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, which
advises against fixed and minimum penalties for several reasons, including that
they interfere with judicial discretion to impose a penalty appropriate to all
the circumstances of a particular case, can ‘create an incentive for defendants
to fight charges, even where there is little merit in doing so’ and may
encourage the judiciary to look for technical grounds to avoid the restriction
on sentencing discretion, leading to anomalous decisions.[46]
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. Criminal Code Act 1995
(Criminal Code), accessed 14 December 2015.
[2]. Ibid.,
sections 360.2 and 360.3. Section 4D of the Crimes Act 1914
(accessed 21 January 2016) provides that a penalty specified for a
Commonwealth offence is to be taken as the maximum penalty unless the contrary
intention appears. Under section 4AA of the Crimes Act, a penalty unit
is equal to $180 as the date of publication of this Digest.
[3]. Ibid.,
sections 361.2 and 361.3.
[4]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website, accessed 14 January 2016.
[5]. Ibid.;
M Keenan, ‘Second
reading speech: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other
Measures) Bill 2012’, House of Representatives, Debates,
5 February 2013, pp. 54–58, accessed 14 January 2016.
[6]. Liberal
Party of Australia and the Nationals, The
Coalition’s policy to tackle crime, Coalition policy document, Election
2013, accessed 14 January 2016.
[7]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website; Parliament of Australia, ‘Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website; both accessed 14 January 2016.
[8]. Australia,
Senate, Journals,
75, 2014–15, p. 2060; Australia, Senate, Journals,
109, 2015–16, pp. 3000–01; both accessed 20 January 2016.
[9]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, ‘Criminal
Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015’, Australian Parliament
website, accessed 14 December 2015.
[10]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, September 2014,
pp. 22–24, 26 (Recommendation 2), accessed 20 January 2016.
The report also includes additional comments from Australian Labor Party
Senators and a dissenting report by the Australian Greens, both opposing the
introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing.
[11]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other
Measures) Bill 2015, pp. 26, 65; Explanatory
Memorandum, Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015,
pp. 4,7; both accessed 20 January 2016.
[12]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, June 2015, pp. 23–25,
accessed 20 January 2016. The report also includes dissenting reports
by Australian Labor Party Senators and the Australian Greens, both opposing the
introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing.
[13]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee), Alert
digest, 10, 2014, The Senate, Canberra, 27 August 2014, pp. 10–11;
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 4, 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 25 March 2015, pp.
11–12; both accessed 14 December 2014.
[14]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), Fifteenth
report of the 44th Parliament, The Senate, Canberra,
14 November 2014, pp. 30–32; PJCHR, Twenty-second
report of the 44th Parliament, The Senate, Canberra,
13 May 2015, pp. 36–39; both accessed 14 January 2016.
[15]. PJCHR,
Twenty-second report of the 44th Parliament, op. cit.,
p. 39. See also PJCHR, Fifteenth report of the 44th Parliament,
op. cit., p. 32.
[16]. Senate,
Journals, 75, op. cit.; Senate, Journals, 109, op. cit.
[17]. D Feeney,
Turnbull
Government won’t learn from Abbott’s failed policies, media release,
3 December 2015, accessed 20 January 2016.
[18]. Senate,
Journals, 75, op. cit.; Senate, Journals, 109, op. cit.
[19]. Ibid.
[20]. Ibid.
[21]. Senate,
Journals, 75, op. cit.
[22]. Senate,
Journals, 109, op. cit.
[23]. Law
Council of Australia (LCA), Submission
to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015, 6 January 2016,
pp. 1–2; Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Submission
to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015,
6 January 2016, pp. 14–16; NSW Council for Civil Liberties
(NSW CCL), Submission
to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015,
6 January 2016, p. 2; all accessed 21 January 2016.
[24]. AHRC,
op. cit., pp. 3–14; LCA, op. cit., pp. 2–5; NSW CCL,
op. cit., pp. 1–2; Civil Liberties Australia (CLA), Submission
to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Criminal Code (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015,
31 December 2015; Law Society of New South Wales (LS NSW), Submission
to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015,
4 January 2016; New South Wales Society of Labor Lawyers
(NSW SLL), Submission
to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015,
7 January 2016; C Barker, Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Psychoactive Substances and Other Measures) Bill 2014,
Bills digest, 29, 2014–15, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2014, p. 11;
C Barker and J Mills, Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015,
Bills digest, 1, 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015, pp. 7–8;
all accessed 21 January 2016.
[25]. J Coyne,
Submission
to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Criminal Code (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015, n.d., p. 2,
accessed 21 January 2016.
[26]. J Coyne,
‘Gun trafficking and mandatory jail terms’,
The Strategist, blog, 18 March 2015, accessed
21 January 2016.
[27]. Explanatory
Memorandum, p. 2.
[28]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 3 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[29]. AHRC,
op. cit., pp. 7–12; CLA, op. cit.; LS NSW, op. cit.;
NSW CCL, op. cit., pp. 1–2.
[30]. M Keenan,
‘Second
reading speech: Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 2 December 2015,
pp. 14438–39, accessed 21 January 2016.
[31]. Explanatory
Memorandum, pp. 6, 8.
[32]. LCA,
op. cit., pp. 1–2. The review the LCA is referring to is Department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet and NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, Martin
Place siege joint Commonwealth–New South Wales review, Australian and
NSW Governments, January 2015 (accessed 21 January 2016).
[33]. AHRC,
op. cit., p. 15; NSW CCL, op. cit., p. 2.
[34]. AHRC,
op. cit., p. 15. See Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), ‘Answers
to questions on notice taken on 22 August 2014’, AGD,
27 August 2014, p. 1, accessed 21 January 2016.
[35]. Ibid.,
pp. 15–17.
[36]. Ibid.
See for example Firearms Act
(NT), section 63A; Firearms Act
1996 (ACT), section 220; Weapons
Act 1990 (Qld), section 65; all accessed
21 January 2016.
[37]. Certain
people smuggling offences in the Migration Act 1958
are a notable exception (see section 236B); subsection 120(2) of the Excise Act 1901
imposes a minimum penalty, but in the form of a fine, not imprisonment (both
accessed 21 January 2016).
[38]. See
for example the views of submitters summarised in Senate Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Anti-People
Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 [Provisions], The Senate,
Canberra, May 2010, pp. 18–21; W Martin, ‘Sentencing
issues in people smuggling cases’, paper presented to the Federal Crime and
Sentencing Conference, Canberra, 11 February 2012; both accessed 21 January 2016.
[39]. CLA,
op. cit.; LCA, op. cit., p. 2; LS NSW, op. cit.,
pp. 1–2.
[40]. CLA,
op. cit.; LCA, op. cit., p. 3; NSW CCL, op. cit.,
p. 2; LS NSW, op. cit., p. 2; AHRC, op. cit.,
pp. 12–14; NSW SLL, op. cit., p. 2.
[41]. CLA,
op. cit.; LCA, op. cit., pp. 2–4; LS NSW, op. cit.,
p. 2; AHRC, op. cit., pp. 5–7, 9–12; NSW SLL, op. cit.,
p. 1.
[42]. AHRC,
op. cit., pp. 7–12; CLA, op. cit.; LS NSW, op. cit.,
pp. 2–3; NSW CCL, op. cit., pp. 1–2. See also the
‘Committee consideration’ section of this Digest for the views of the PJCHR.
[43]. CLA,
op. cit.; NSW CCL, op. cit., p. 2; LCA, op. cit.,
pp. 2–4.
[44]. LCA,
op. cit., p. 2.
[45]. AHRC,
op. cit., p. 6.
[46]. AGD,
A
guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement
powers, AGD, Canberra, updated September 2011, pp. 37–39,
accessed 21 January 2016.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.