Page 2468 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
would be remiss of me, in commencing my comments in closing the debate, not to reflect on the interesting position adopted by the Liberal Party on this bill.
At the outset, I make the point that I acknowledge and thank them for their support of what the government believes is a proportionate and considered response to the issues around serious and organised crime. But it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the fact that one of their number is not here today. He previously called for laws exactly the same as in New South Wales when it comes to dealing with serious and organised crime. That is, of course, the shadow minister for police, Mr Hanson. The shadow minister for police, Mr Hanson, is on the record as saying that, unless the ACT legislated in exactly the same way as New South Wales and South Australia when it came to the issue of organised crime, in particular the prescribing of anti-association laws in relation to outlawed motorcycle gangs, the ACT would become a haven for these criminal groups.
I am pleased that Mrs Dunne has prevailed and has convinced her more extreme colleague not to maintain that position. Nevertheless, it is an interesting observation that needs to be made that the shadow minister for police is not here today, and perhaps that reflects the fact that he has been rolled in the party room by his colleague Mrs Dunne.
As members would know, these amendments are targeted at those people involved in serious and organised crime who seek financial gain by inflicting fear and violence upon our families and communities. These laws target criminal networks that engage in illegal activities. To address the evolving domestic and international threats posed by serious organised crime, the government has given careful consideration to our legislative responses.
The amendments that are being debated today represent a strong stand against organised crime groups. The bill is one of a suite of legislative amendments that will deny criminal networks the opportunity to establish themselves in our community. These amendments were flagged in the government’s report on serious organised crime groups and activities.
Being a human rights jurisdiction, as other members have noted, we have investigated the effect of these proposals on our established human rights. To ensure that the government’s approach appropriately considers and responds to our human rights obligations, I also sought the advice of the Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner on these matters. This advice was tabled in the Assembly on 23 February this year and was very critical of the heavy-handed approach to serious organised crime that other jurisdictions like New South Wales and South Australia have taken. I would add, of course, that that approach, particularly in South Australia, is now the subject of challenge in the High Court.
I am on record as saying that the ACT does not need restrictive laws to deal with serious organised crime, and the advice of the commissioner confirms this belief. In light of that advice, the government will not be adopting the restrictive approach of disallowing the association of certain groups, as some other jurisdictions have done. As a jurisdiction with enshrined values in relation to human rights, the government has decided that the anti-association laws pose too great an affliction on the right to the freedom of association, freedom of movement, and the right to a fair trial.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video