Page 2298 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Like anyone in this chamber, I am concerned about serious organised crime. None of us want outlaw motorcycle gangs or other criminals to commit crimes in our city or to endanger our citizens. And I support giving the police appropriate powers to tackle these issues. The question, of course, as it is with any of the laws that we debate in this Assembly, is: are they appropriate and are they justified? There are other issues to consider and balance beyond tackling crime, such as impacts on the community, the rights set out in our Human Rights Act like freedom of association and freedom of assembly, and the efficacy of the laws and evidence to support them.
I note that Mr Corbell has withdrawn the anti-consorting laws from the government’s agenda and I am pleased that he made that decision. Mr Corbell took a sound and principled approach to the pressure to introduce the anti-bikie consorting laws in 2009, laws that have been extremely problematic and which were struck down by the High Court as unconstitutional. The Greens were concerned that they may be coming back onto the agenda. Those anti-consorting laws are ones that seriously challenge important rights in our society. They limit freedom of association, assembly and movement. They deem human interactions and associations to be suspicious and criminal. To top it off, their efficacy is seriously under question. This is not just me saying this; the laws have been reviewed and reported on extensively.
The anti-consorting laws are put into perspective by looking at the first individual charged under the New South Wales anti-consorting laws. He was not a member of an unlawful motorcycle gang. He was a young man with an intellectual disability charged while out shopping with friends and sentenced to nine months jail. His conviction was later overturned. I mention anti-consorting laws because the controversial elements of today’s bill are, to some extent, in the same vein. They are laws that are ostensibly to be used for tackling organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs, but they are also laws that intrude significantly into everyday rights of individuals and I think are liable to lead to broader negative consequences.
I will start by talking about the proposal to expand the offences for which a court can place a non-association and place restriction order, or a NAPRO, on an individual. As the name suggests, these are court orders that prevent a convicted person from associating with a certain person or visiting a certain place. Currently, a NAPRO can be used in relation to a personal violence offence and that is all. This makes sense, and the original laws were designed to serve this function. Violence often occurs in the context of relationships. The court may feel a person is still under threat of violence, so they order that the offender cannot go near a victim or their residence—like a version of an AVO or DVO.
The proposal from the government is to change this type of order into something quite different in an attempt to find powers that they can use on outlaw motorcycle gangs. It is attempting to expand NAPROs so that they can be used in relation to a range of offences: serious drug offences, serious property offences, serious administration of justice offences, and ancillary offences such as conspiracy and attempt. Perhaps most disturbingly—and I ask members to consider this carefully—a NAPRO can also be used for any other offence that is prescribed by regulation. What additional offences will be prescribed by regulation? Why has the government included this ability to endlessly expand the scope of NAPRO offences by regulation, a mechanism that does not come under the same scrutiny as if it was declared in a bill before the Assembly?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video