Page 1703 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the only source of information. Australian governments are advised by their police forces, indeed, by the Australian Crime Commission.
Federal parliament currently has a joint committee inquiry into the legislative arrangements to outlaw serious and organised crime groups. In its submission to the inquiry, the Australian Crime Commission expressed caution about the long-term effectiveness of the South Australian laws. The ACC also noted the risk of making members of these groups more difficult for police to monitor or target.
I do not accept the assertion as a given that, because New South Wales legislates in one way, we will be swamped, to use Mr Hanson’s language on radio this morning, by bikie gangs from New South Wales. As I have just indicated, the Australian Crime Commission itself has indicated caution about such assertions. Indeed, it is difficult to determine whether or not that will be the case.
I stand by my comments that the South Australian legislation is draconian. Elements of it clearly are, and they raise significant questions about the application of fundamental legal and human rights principles in terms of the power of the police, the judiciary and the state overall. These are matters that warrant serious and considered consideration, rather than knee-jerk populist demands to do something straightaway.
I note that Mr Hanson is proposing an amendment to my motion. He has foreshadowed that. I think it is important to place on the record that Mr Hanson’s motion replicates in its entirety all of my motion and adds only one additional point. Mr Hanson’s proposed paragraph (2)(f) states:
any legislative changes it considers appropriate to ensure that the ACT will not attract organised criminal elements that are dislocated from other States and territories …
I note that that is the only substantive change to the advice that I propose; in effect, he is agreeing with my motion, and I welcome that. The government will not be opposing this amendment, even though effectively it deletes all my motion, then reinstates it and adds one more point. I will leave that as said for the sake of procedural cleanliness and effectiveness.
I note also that he is proposing to add a new paragraph (1). That is simply a noting provision. Again, that noting provision deals with my comments and adds a couple of others, none of which I think members in this place would disagree with. I think that this reaffirms the importance of conducting this debate in a considered way and without presenting some nightmare scenario that the ACT is going to be swamped by outlaw motorcycle gangs if New South Wales legislates in a particular way.
It is interesting to contrast the approach of the New South Wales government with the approach of the Victorian government when they had a gangland war in Melbourne. It did not involve outlaw motorcycle gangs, but it was the same behaviour—shootings, attempted shootings, drive-by shootings, attempted bombings, all of these types of activities.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .