Page 2466 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The term “agreement” is given a broad interpretation, even one reached by way of non-verbal understanding. A joint offence does not apply if a person who is party to an agreement withdraws before the offence is committed and tries to prevent the offence from being committed. Nonetheless, conviction will apply regardless of the status of criminal proceedings against other parties to the agreement.
The scrutiny committee report No 20 raised the following issues: whether the definition of “criminal group” should be clearer, including specific definitions for several of the specific elements; whether the interpretation of the state of mind of a participant as to whether the participant ought to have known or was reckless as to the criminal intent or activities of the group should be clarified; whether the limitations on human rights is proportionate; and whether the extraterritorial reach of the legislation—in effect, anywhere across the planet, as the Queensland scrutiny committee referred to the same clause in that state—is outside the legislative competency of the ACT Assembly.
I consider these are reasonable questions, but the attorney did not. His response, in effect, dismissed them except to the extent of undertaking to table an amended explanatory statement to clarify the issue of the mental state of a person who participates in a criminal group. The committee’s report No 21 again called on the attorney to justify the approach taken in the bills on these matters. But, as we have seen on a number of occasions this week, the attorney responded by dismissing them. The attorney has become known for his somewhat offhand dismissal of the matters raised by the scrutiny committee, and I consider this to be unfortunate in the least.
In my consultation on this bill, I noted the Australian Federal Police Association’s comment that the bill lacks coverage of conspiracy and unexplained wealth. I understand these matters are to be addressed at a later time, and I look forward to the Attorney-General introducing legislation some time in the near future.
In the context of participating in criminal groups, the Australian Federal Police Association also raised the matter of assault of a law enforcement officer, noting that this is covered in the New South Wales legislation but strangely absent from the ACT’s bill we are debating today. The AFPA believe—and I agree—that this is an important element to consider. The AFPA believe protection of our law enforcement officers is critical in the fight against organised crime. They also believe that consistency of the law between the ACT and New South Wales is important. I agree with the AFPA, and I consider this to be a matter that can now be addressed. I foreshadow that in the detailed debate on this bill I will be introducing an amendment to cover off on assaults on law enforcement officers.
Serious organised crime is something that we residents of the ACT never thought could affect us. It is one of those things that we like to think happens only elsewhere. But, increasingly, this attitude is unrealistic. Serious organised crime organisations know no bounds. Worse, they are so clever as to be able to find every gap or loophole in the law. For the ACT to remain an unlegislated island in the middle of New South Wales, which has serious organised crime laws in place, is to court disaster. Such a haven would seriously jeopardise the safety and security of our law-abiding citizens and our law enforcement personnel. This bill addresses that gap and provides more
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video