Page 1693 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this kind of a discussion and to start looking at whether there are deficiencies in current ACT laws, both from a general point of view and in relation to the specific issue.
That is why the Greens, in the context of this cognate debate and talking about both the motions, have indicated to Mr Hanson that we would not support his motion; that we felt the approach put forward by the Attorney-General was the one that was right for the current state of discussion, which is to look at the laws, to look at what other states are doing. I think we do need to be mindful of dislocation issues or displacement issues. We do need to keep an eye on what other states are doing.
I am also aware of the fact that there is a national approach going on and I think it is important that the ACT move forward in the context of considering those national movements and not just on a state-by-state approach. I think one of Australia’s great travesties always is the state-by-state approach we take to some things like this where there is value in looking at a more consistent approach.
I think it is also important—and this is why I prefer the Attorney-General’s approach—that we not get caught up in the moral panic that is out there. I appreciate Mr Hanson’s comments on that. I think the discussion we are having here today has been, so far, a measured and valuable one. I think it is important that, as the Assembly, we also do not demonstrate some moral panic and that we move forward in a considered and thoughtful way, because I am personally not prepared to see a rushed response on this.
I would like to come back to the South Australian laws to illustrate this point. Under the South Australian laws, the definition of organisation is quite broad. Under section 10 of the South Australian law—and the New South Wales law is mooted to make a similar provision—an organisation can be outlawed for one of two reasons: firstly, if members of the organisation associate for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity; and, secondly, if the organisation represents a risk to public safety and order in that state.
Then it is useful to look at the definition of an organisation. It is “any incorporated body or unincorporated group (however structured)”. However, serious criminal activity not only means offences such as rape, murder, assault and fraud but any other offence that the government decides should be deemed to be serious.
I have taken some of this information from an article that appeared in Crikey yesterday. The writer of this article, Greg Barnes, then goes on to make an interesting point, having observed the state of the South Australian legislation:
It does not take too much of an intellectual leap to see how these sweeping powers could be abused by government. One example would be environmental protest groups. If that group’s members engage in damage to property, trespass on to land or resist arrest—common enough offences committed by some environmental activists—and the government comes under pressure from corporate interests and the police to curtail this group’s influence, then the easiest thing to do would be to proscribe them. This would then mean that any time any two or more members of this environmental group gathered they would commit a serious criminal offence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .