Dean JacquiCRIMES (ROBBERY) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Madam Chair. I move again That the Crimes (Robbery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.I'm pleased to lead off the debate tonight on this member's bill selected from the ballot a while back now. This is the second time I've had a member's bill drawn in nearly four years. I know it's not as many as some other members but it always makes me smile to think of my ex-colleague my dear friend Mr Tim Macindoe who failed to get a single member's bill drawn in 11 years.Members' bills are a chance to get something on the floor that wouldn't otherwise happen because it doesn't fit in with the Government's agenda. So can I start tonight by acknowledging my ex-colleague and good friend Matt King. This was in fact his bill. As an ex-policeman of many years he saw firsthand the problems caused by anomalies in the Crimes Act and indeed the anomalies that this bill will attempt to fix. Matt King was approached by members of the police who asked him to bring this bill and here we are.As you can tell by the lack of paper in the Crimes (Robbery) Amendment Bill it's not a large or overly complex bill. The bill's a very short and relatively minor amendment to the Crimes Act. But while small it will make a big difference. In fact the bill is just three words. Quite simply the bill inserts the words or unlawful taking" into section 234 of the Crimes Act. Currently section 234 of the Crimes Act defines robbery as "theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence to any person or property used to extort the property stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen". The definition of theft in relation to robbery is important in the context of this bill.If we look at the definition of theft in section 219 of the Crimes Act we can see that there are a few parts that must be proven to make the case for theft: was there a taking that occurred without consent was the item taken dishonestly was the item taken without claim of right etc. etc. but importantly was the item taken with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of said item?Section 219(2) states that theft or stealing is "An intent to deprive any owner permanently of property [and] includes an intent to deal with property in such a manner that—(a) the property cannot be returned to any owner in the same condition; or (b) any owner is likely to be permanently deprived of the property or of any interest in the property." It's quite easy therefore to think about a robbery in terms of a situation where a perpetrator grabs a victim roughs them up takes their wallet with $20 in it and runs off. They have permanently deprived the victim of that $20 and the wallet and of course there is the accompanying violence aspect thus robbery is proven and there is a 10-year maximum sentence and of course that is also a strike offence.The problem arises when the item taken is a vehicle in the form of a carjacking for instance. So for example the perpetrator opens the door of the car grabs the victim threatens them hauls them out of the car shoves them to the ground and then takes off with their $80000 Kona—for argument's sake. If the car is dumped by the perpetrator as can often happen and therefore can be returned at some point to the victim then section 219(2) the intent to permanently deprive cannot be satisfied and the item can be returned to the owner in the same or very similar condition so the owner is not likely to be permanently deprived of the vehicle or the interest in that vehicle.So here we have a situation in a robbery where a victim can be roughed up with their wallet taken—$20—that satisfies the definition of robbery but if a perpetrator grabs someone threatens them hauls them out of the car throws them on the ground takes off with the car and dumps it robbery cannot be proven. Of course if the car is burnt out or written off then robbery can be proven but if not then robbery is off the table. This bill seeks to remedy the anomaly in the law.This bill proposes to insert three little words that read "or unlawful taking" into the definition of robbery in section 234 of the Crimes Act so that it would read "Robbery is theft or unlawful taking accompanied by violence or threats of violence to any person or property used to extort" blah blah blah. The words "or unlawful taking" brings—Hon Member: Blah blah blah!ERICA STANFORD: —Ha ha! It's a legal term!—the taking of the vehicle into the definition of robbery and so there is no longer any test around intent to permanently deprive. So whether the perpetrator burns the car out writes it off or simply drives it and dumps it 200 kilometres away robbery can still be proven.The reason for this bill is multiple approaches to us from the police asking for this small change to be made because they could see the anomaly in the law and they could see the types of things that prosecutors currently have to do to try their best to work around the law. What typically happens in a carjacking case when it comes to the prosecution is that the prosecutors put up multiple charges because the crime doesn't fit that one tidy crime of robbery. Some of the charges that are typically laid instead of robbery include demand with menace if the perpetrator says "Hey get out of the car."; threat to kill or grievous bodily harm if they say "Get out of the car or I'll kill you."; threatening behaviour which is a summary offence; then there'll be charges around the way in which the victim was touched: common assault if they just get their arm pulled or aggravated assault which is a three-year charge; and then there will be the charges around the taking of the car—unlawful taking.The way these charges are put together is messy. There are multiple charges multiple charging documents which cost the taxpayer more. They are more complex and often take a lot longer to go through the system. There's normally more court time or more court appearances because of the multiple charges and the fact that the lawyers haggle: "Hey we'll drop this if you accept this and we might drop that." so it can take a much longer court time. But the prosecutors have to do all of this because of the anomaly in the law where this is actually a robbery in the same way where a perpetrator grabs a victim takes their wallet roughs them up and takes off but the multiple charges that prosecutors have to lay in a carjacking scenario to get it anywhere near robbery gives us a situation that is far less than ideal. It's in fact complex it's messy it's very lengthy and it's costly. And even with all of the above charges possible it's never possible to reach the same threshold of robbery which is that 10 years is the maximum penalty.The other thing worthy of note is that while we still have the three strikes regime robbery is a strike offence and those other mixes even when cobbled together aren't a strike offence. So we can have a strike offence for someone stealing a wallet for $20 and roughing up a victim but not for roughing them up and taking off in their $80000 car and dumping it. The crime of robbery puts theft and violence or threats of violence in one charge—it's clean and it's tidy. We have the charge of robbery for the very reason of not having to charge the wallet robber with multiple charges as we currently have to do with a carjacking. This bill would rightly allow prosecutors to use the charge of robbery for a carjacking when the car is dumped.National will always put victims at the heart of the justice system and this bill fixes that anomaly in the law that requires a car to be written off or burnt out in order to fulfil that requirement of permanent deprivation.So as I've said a very small bill a very uncomplicated bill a three-word bill to bring what is robbery of a car into the definition of robbery without the requirement to permanently deprive. I'm not sure of support from across the House for this bill but I am forever hopeful of course that we can get it to select committee so we can scrutinise improve the bill in any way we see fit and of course to iron out any potential anomalies. So I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."