Page 1694 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Barnes goes on to say:
If someone joins the group simply because their motivation is to save the planet, they are deemed to be a serious criminal. Unions too, could find themselves on the wrong end of these laws. Their industrial opponents, be they other unions or employers, could lobby government to proscribe a union that was at the militant end of the spectrum simply for political reasons.
I think the points made by Mr Barnes are a good pointer to us to be mindful not to rush into legislation. Of course, people know my background. This argument he makes would be close to my heart. But I think it sends a warning to us to think through any legislation that would be proposed. That is, again, why the Greens support the approach put forward by the Attorney-General to consider this and the various points that he makes about looking at other states, looking at other legislation. That is why we have preferred that approach.
The final comment I would make is that, from discussions with Mr Hanson, I know he has now come up with some amendments. In the event that his motion is defeated, he will put some amendments to the Attorney-General’s original motion. I will speak to them now, to keep it all in one intervention. The Greens will be supporting the amendments put forward by Mr Hanson. I think they do flesh out and add some further details to the attorney’s original motion. I think that is valuable, gives the inquiries a slightly broader scope and invites the government to come back with more concrete results at the end of that discussion process at the end of June.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.29): I thank Mr Hanson and the minister for bringing forward these matters. I think that they are important and that they are matters that we do need to be measured about. We cannot spend our time taking up a hyperbolic position to make the point.
We must be careful, though, to keep in mind that we in Australia are not immune from organised crime and other serious criminal activities and that we in the ACT are not so immune. There has been a bit of a propensity over the years for us to romanticise people like Al Capone or Squizzy Taylor but the reality is that organised crime is one of the most serious threats to the safety and security of our community.
For most of us, the watershed experience in relation to organised crime came in the 1970s. The acme of that would be the as yet unresolved mystery surrounding the death of Donald Mackay and the involvement of Robert Trimbole and others. More recently, we have seen the horrors of Melbourne’s gangland wars. In recent weeks, violent events in Sydney, culminating in a death at Sydney airport and a series of drive-by shootings, explosions and the planting of unexploded bombs, have served to heighten our awareness of and abhorrence of the issues of organised crime and serious criminal activity generally.
The cost of organised crime in our community is monumental. In its 2009 report on organised crime in Australia, the Australian Crime Commission estimates that in 2008 the conservative cost for Australia of organised crime was $10 billion. The commission report notes that these costs are realised in loss of business and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .