Page 1712 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clearly, the Attorney-General was going to be sitting on his hands. He has said that I have been sensationalising this issue. The reality is that he is the one that has been using the emotive language. He has described the laws as draconian and so on. What I have said is let us have the appropriate laws here to prevent an increase in crime.
As to the debate about whether my motion is legal or not, I think Mr Smyth has made some valid points, but I also acknowledge the points Mr Corbell made. However, the intent of my motion remains valid—we do need laws to be brought into this Assembly and we need to make sure that we do not just go through an endless process of looking at things, waiting and seeing. We actually need at some stage to recognise that a legislative response is required to what has occurred in New South Wales. The only emotive language I could use is to call the Attorney-General weak and indecisive. Given the response from the minister today, I do not step away from that.
Mrs Dunne made a number of good points about the laws that we are discussing, the fact that there is an appeal process in the South Australian laws and that in New South Wales you actually need to apply to the Supreme Court. To proscribe an organisation is not something that can be done easily. The issue of a sunset clause is very important, and I concur with Mrs Dunne’s view that we do need to make sure that, if we introduce such laws, we have a sunset clause.
It is interesting that Mr Corbell has criticised me here and in the media for not describing specific laws. Basically, what I am saying is that we need to make sure that we do look at this seriously. We need to introduce the appropriate laws and we need to ensure that they are measured and do not go any further than they need to. I have been saying that consistently. Mr Corbell has criticised me for not coming in here and banging on the table and saying, “These are the laws we need.” It is a very inconsistent argument he is running. The point I am making is that we need the appropriate laws. I am not going to come in here and say that it is this law or that law that we need. That is the job he needs to do, and that is what I am calling on him to do.
The Attorney-General needs to send a clear message to the community and, in particular, to organised crime that we, as a jurisdiction, will not allow organised criminal elements to set up here as they are driven out of New South Wales. Nathan Rees has declared he will drive them out of that state both by legislative action and by instigating task force Raptor, and we must ensure that we do not become a soft touch and an area where organised crime can operate without the appropriate laws that we need to deal with them.
I thank Mr Rattenbury for his indications that he will support my amendments to Mr Corbell’s motion. I do feel, though, that he is extrapolating concerns about these laws too far. I understand where he comes from as an environmental activist. However, these are laws that are specifically targeted at organised criminal elements and organised crime. The sorts of safeguards that would be included in these laws with regard to how they would be used in the Supreme Court or how they would be actually enacted in the ACT would guarantee that they would be specifically targeted at organised crime and could not be used against unions, environmentalist groups or other elements. Certainly, we would support any laws introduced in the ACT to make sure those safeguards existed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .