Page 1548 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
territory laws used to combat organised crime groups and any review proposed or needed in relation to such laws. This would allow the Assembly to get advice on the effect and impact, for example, of the passage of laws in the Assembly last year, the Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act, as it is now known, and whether further work is needed in relation to those laws. It will also allow the Assembly to get an overview of issues relating to the operations of South Australia’s Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008, including, and importantly, any available evidence as to its operation and efficacy in reducing organised criminal activity.
There are, no doubt, a range of views as to whether or not such legislation actually serves its purpose in effectively disrupting organised criminal activity in the form of outlaw motorcycle gangs or whether, indeed, it simply results in driving those activities further underground. These are issues that warrant further consideration by this place and further information should be provided to this place in relation to that.
We are also, of course, aware of the proposals put forward by the New South Wales government to provide for special powers to deal with their outlaw motorcycle gang activity. I think it is important to stress that Canberra is not Sydney. We are not seeing the gang-related violence that is occurring in that jurisdiction.
The disturbing and shocking murder of two individuals in Tuggeranong in the last week or so is, on the advice provided to the government by the police, not an incident that appears to be related to any broader gang-related activity, tension or violence. Indeed, the advice available to the police, and which the police have made public, is that that tragic and disturbing incident appears to be related to a domestic dispute between the parties involved. These are, of course, matters for the courts to determine.
But it is important to stress that we should not simply adopt the approach adopted by the New South Wales government without first understanding exactly what it is the New South Wales government is proposing—and we are yet to see the bill—and, secondly, whether or not such powers are actually required here in the ACT. Are they proportionate to our circumstances? Do they respond or is there a need for a response to the particular issues that we face locally? Further, is there a need—and this will be the point, I imagine, of broadest debate—to ensure that we do not provide for any potential displacement of activity from one jurisdiction to another? As I said, there are a range of views on this matter and it is important that, before making a decision as to whether or not any legislation is needed, the Assembly have the broadest possible range of information before it is to reach a considered view.
Next in my motion I propose to provide information to the Assembly on any legislative developments internationally that could be of relevance in this debate. There are a number of jurisdictions internationally that have implemented laws similar to the South Australian legislation. Their operation is of longer standing than South Australia’s and the experience is better understood. It would be valuable for this place to have an assessment of that experience, any information that is available, to again inform the Assembly on this matter.
Finally, and importantly, there are a range of important human rights considerations that must be brought to bear in this debate. For example, in the South Australian legislation that outlaws certain types of organised criminal activity in relation to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .