Division
David Feeney by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 5, page 10 (lines 1 to 26), omit the Schedule. (2) Schedule 6, page 11 (lines 1 to 23), omit the Schedule. I rise to speak to Labor's concerns about two of the proposed elements found in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Labor is concerned about the insertion of 'knowingly concerned' as a secondary form of criminal liability, and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking offences. As detailed in my speech on the second reading, we note the strong opposition held by peak law organisations with respect to these amendments, and we note the lack of consultation that has occurred with respect to this bill. Not only has the government failed to engage with stakeholders with regard to these amendments, but it has also failed to justify the need for an additional form of secondary criminal liability to apply to all offences in the Criminal Code. The government has highlighted particular categories of offences where the concept of 'knowingly concerned' is required, including drug and drug importation offences and insider trading offences. However, all of the offences identified have already been drafted in a way that addressed the concerns raised without the need to include 'knowingly concerned'. Labor believes that the proposed change in relation to the introduction of 'knowingly concerned' is a major change to the Model Criminal Code. Leading up to the adoption of the Model Criminal Code in 1995, there was a long consultation. The consultation occupied some years and included some of Australia's leading criminal practitioners. There ought to be a full consultation in relation to any proposed general change to the Model Criminal Code. As the Australian Human Rights Commission noted in a submission to the Senate committee, it is difficult to anticipate the impact of extending this form of liabilit
House of Representatives, 2015-08-12. negative: ayes 46, noes 80.
Question
David Feeney by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together: (1) Schedule 5, page 10 (lines 1 to 26), omit the Schedule. (2) Schedule 6, page 11 (lines 1 to 23), omit the Schedule. I rise to speak to Labor's concerns about two of the proposed elements found in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Labor is concerned about the insertion of 'knowingly concerned' as a secondary form of criminal liability, and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for firearms trafficking offences. As detailed in my speech on the second reading, we note the strong opposition held by peak law organisations with respect to these amendments, and we note the lack of consultation that has occurred with respect to this bill. Not only has the government failed to engage with stakeholders with regard to these amendments, but it has also failed to justify the need for an additional form of secondary criminal liability to apply to all offences in the Criminal Code. The government has highlighted particular categories of offences where the concept of 'knowingly concerned' is required, including drug and drug importation offences and insider trading offences. However, all of the offences identified have already been drafted in a way that addressed the concerns raised without the need to include 'knowingly concerned'. Labor believes that the proposed change in relation to the introduction of 'knowingly concerned' is a major change to the Model Criminal Code. Leading up to the adoption of the Model Criminal Code in 1995, there was a long consultation. The consultation occupied some years and included some of Australia's leading criminal practitioners. There ought to be a full consultation in relation to any proposed general change to the Model Criminal Code. As the Australian Human Rights Commission noted in a submission to the Senate committee, it is difficult to anticipate the impact of extending this form of liabilit
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.