Page 3623 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the definition. I fear that down the line, when a government has a group before it that it does not particularly like, there is the potential for abuse of such provisions.
Mr Cowdery’s next point was that the New South Wales provisions attempt to oust in the widest possible terms the ability to apply for review of control orders made under the provisions. This interferes with natural justice considerations.
The next point he made was that the definition of a member of a group is alarmingly wide. Very little evidence is required to prove that an individual is actually a member of a group. Because individuals may be the subject of control orders, this definitional issue has serious ramifications.
The final point I want to draw out from Mr Cowdery is that facts that need to be proven under the provisions need only be proven on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt. In Mr Cowdery’s words, this is “insufficiently rigorous” for the removal of such fundamental rights as freedom of association.
There are a number of other points that he sets out in the report, and I have just touched on a taste of them, but I think this is quite a serious set of public comments from the Director of Public Prosecutions in New South Wales, a man who has, I think, spent considerable time thinking about these issues. They demonstrate the very serious issues raised in these areas of law and underline the responsibility placed upon members of this place as we consider how to tackle the issue of serious organised crime. It is a very serious issue, and one which I think does warrant the sort of analysis that we have seen the first stages of in this report from the government.
I welcome the report. I think it provides us with a much better foundation for moving forward and discussing these issues than simply standing up and making comments like, “Well, the ACT is the softest jurisdiction in Australia.” What does that mean? I do not think that is a useful contribution. I do not think being tough is a useful end in itself. I think we need to have laws that tackle the crimes we face. I think that is the way that the Assembly should proceed.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo--Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.03), in reply: I would like to thank members for their contribution to the debate on this report this afternoon. As members have noted, the report provides advice on the nature and operation of existing territory laws used to combat organised crime groups and any proposed review of such laws. It looks at issues arising from the South Australian legislation; legislation introduced or proposed in New South Wales and Queensland; other legislative developments internationally that are of relevance; the human rights issues raised by such legislation; and legislative changes that may be considered by this Assembly and the government to enhance the ACT’s response to serious organised crime groups and activities.
As the minister responsible, I am determined to get the balance right when it comes to how the ACT responds to serious and organised crime. When I tabled the government’s report on serious organised crime, I described the report as a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .