Page 4538 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 26 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
licensed premises; and the ability to cancel licenses under the Liquor Act 2010 or the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004.
It is apparent that these laws are in many ways a belated response to the disparity in laws between the ACT and other jurisdictions that do have anti-consorting laws. In fact this bill contains some provisions which, ironically, have been characterised by members of the community as having a greater impact on human rights than the anti-consorting and criminal control orders bills that the Canberra Liberals presented previously. Indeed, the ACT Bar Association has written a strident submission about the laws, which I note has been brought to the government’s attention.
However, while we are in a position where the territory is left without anti-consorting laws, this bill does offer tools to allow law enforcement the ability to enforce actions on criminal gangs that they do not currently have.
I note that the government has some amendments but these are technical. We will be supporting these amendments as well as the bill in principle—noting the issues that have been raised by the Bar Association. The bottom line, in my view, is that the refusal to match other states on anti-consorting laws has resulted in what we have seen from the government: a patchwork of laws being introduced to address the issues that we have with criminal activity in this town, which seemed unabated and ongoing. That said, we will not be impeding law enforcement. Given that they have their hands tied behind their back in dealing with these gangs, we will be supporting these laws.
I thank the Bar Association for their submission and the attorney’s office for providing us with a briefing. I welcome to Mr Ramsay’s office the new senior legal adviser, Amy Kilpatrick, who provided quick answers to the questions we raised. I note that that is consistent with the responses. We may agree to disagree, Attorney-General, but we always get answers, whether we like them or not. I acknowledge that, and I continue to thank you for the ongoing advice that you provide. I thank Ian Hagan, again, from my office for his research and engagement with the minister’s office and the community.
We will support these laws. The reality is that we would not be in the position we are in today if we had been proactive in bringing in the laws that we needed to back in 2009. This government’s belligerent position to continue to ignore the calls for those laws to be introduced by chief police officers and others in the community so that we could have consistency with other jurisdictions means that we will continue to see not only more of this patchwork of legislation being brought in by the Attorney-General but also, no doubt, more violent activity in our community from criminal organisations.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Manager of Government Business, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister assisting the Chief Minister on Advanced Technology and Space Industries) (11.26): I am pleased to speak in support of the Crimes (Disrupting Criminal Gangs) Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I thank the attorney for his work in helping to combat organised crime in the city.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video