Page 2473 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
For completeness, the two aggravated offence provisions that will be common between the ACT and New South Wales are, firstly, to assault another person with the intention of participating in a criminal activity of a criminal group and, secondly, to destroy or damage property or threaten to do so with the intention of participating in a criminal activity of a criminal group.
As mentioned earlier in the debate, the Australian Federal Police Association provided feedback to me and, I understand, to other members of the Assembly during consultation on this bill. The issues that were still outstanding and matters of concern to the Australian Federal Police Association are, as I have said before, the issues of unexplained wealth, conspiracy and assault on a law enforcement officer.
The attorney has said that he is looking at the issue of unexplained wealth. It is more on the never-never than I had previously expected, and that is something that I will have to address. But the reason why the government has not taken up this issue is less clear. It may well be the case that this type of offence is covered by other law in the ACT.
The important difference is that this amendment will do two things. Firstly, it will provide a consistency with the New South Wales law, thus closing any potential loophole or gap. I noted earlier that organised crime groups are very clever and able to identify loopholes and gaps easily. This amendment will make it much harder for these groups. Secondly, it is consistent with other aggravated offence provisions contained in the bill, in that the three of them will not be of any general kind of nature but specifically apply to the context of participating in a criminal group; thus other potential loopholes are closed.
The definition of “law enforcement officer” contained in my amendment is very broad, including officers who work anywhere on this planet. This is consistent with the intent of the bill as a whole, in that, as I noted earlier in the debate, it has extraterritorial effect—indeed anywhere on the planet.
If this new law is to be effective, it must provide necessary disincentives for engaging in organised crime, and a critical element of that strategy comprises our law enforcement officers. This amendment seeks to put law enforcement officers right up there with everything else for all the world to see. It acknowledges the important work of our law enforcement officers, noting that the definition even includes the Attorney-General himself, so at least self-interest should encourage the attorney to support this amendment. That work involves fighting crime, and in this case serious organised crime, in our community. Our community and our law enforcement officers—even this Attorney-General—are entitled to feel safe and secure and it is our duty as legislators to deliver that safety and security, and for this reason I commend the amendment to the House.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.07): I have just discovered from Mrs Dunne that her definition does not appear to include the Greens’ attorney-general spokesperson.
Mrs Dunne: It does not include me either, so it is all right.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video