Page 1700 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
been quite an irresponsible one. What this motion does well illustrate is that Mr Hanson is quickly showing that he is not, in fact, the new more sensible face of the Canberra Liberals. Some voiced that opinion following his election—that he somehow represented the new moderate face of the Liberals. Unfortunately, his public contributions on the issue of outlaw motorcycle gangs show that this is definitely not the case.
His actions and statements, in fact, show that Mr Hanson represents the same old, law and order tub-thumping that we have come to expect from the Canberra Liberals—the same old approach of taking a sensationalist and reactionary approach to issues of law and order and always seeking to hijack informed debate for political advantage. This knee-jerk motion—and that is what it is—from Mr Hanson today not only perpetuates that sensationalist and reactionary approach, that law and order approach; it also clearly breaches the separation of powers doctrine.
Mr Hanson’s motion stands in stark contrast to the motion I moved yesterday. The government’s motion aims to facilitate a process by which members of this place are informed about the range of important issues that are raised by the recent developments concerning outlaw motorcycle gangs.
Members of this place often talk about consultation, and they often express the sentiment that, as members of the Assembly, the government should better facilitate the flow of information and better involve members in policy development issues at an early stage. There can be, in my view, few issues as profoundly significant in a democratic society as those raised by a proposal to ban organisations. The laws in South Australia and the mooted laws in New South Wales do that. They ban organisations. They restrict the rights of citizens to associate and assemble. These are grave and extraordinary steps that we, as legislators, must consider with great seriousness. So it was in the spirit of providing information, in the spirit of engaging early in issues around policy development that I put forward the motion that I did yesterday.
I have been very clear from the beginning of this debate and consistent from the beginning of this debate that the government will not be rushed. We will not be propelled at a furious pace by media clamour, but we will take a reasoned and responsible approach to these matters. This should be at the forefront of all members’ minds before we propose to rush headlong in following other jurisdictions. There is a need for informed and responsible decision making.
That is why I have sought, through my motion, to start a process whereby members of this place are informed at an early stage on the range of issues that are raised by calls to introduce South Australian-style anti-bikie legislation. The government’s motion does not pre-empt these issues or rule out any particular proposals. It seeks rather to ensure that members will be properly informed.
Mr Hanson’s motion, however, is predicated on the basis that legislation is needed, and that it is needed now. Indeed, it purports to direct the government to introduce such legislation next month. So much for reasoned and responsible decision making. Mr Hanson’s preferred path is for the Assembly to direct the government to legislate
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .