Page 2875 - Week 08 - Thursday, 17 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Labor Party for stopping it! There have been concerns about anti-consorting laws. I acknowledge those. But it is not fair to say that anti-consorting laws are something that this government does not already have. I quote the Deputy Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate, David Pryce, who said in a committee recently:
… we do have other laws that actually prevent association and put place restrictions on people in certain circumstances. It is not accurate to characterise it as if there is no legislative ability to actually prevent people …
We have non-association orders that the courts can deliver. Obviously, through bail restrictions, there is an ability to put restrictions on people and there are also place restriction orders that can be made as well ….
There are always exemptions and this is always a balance between human rights and community. I will quote Mr Rattenbury on these sorts of limitations that will be put on human rights. Mr Rattenbury has said previously, “It is recognised that few rights are absolute and in accordance with established international human rights norms reasonable limits may be placed on the right to freedom of expression and related rights with the aim of balancing competing interests.”
I note with caution that the Human Rights Commissioner expressed in-principle support as a result of the recent spate of crimes that we have seen in the ACT. It is naive to bury our heads in the sand and say that we are going to be slavish adherents to the Human Rights Act, ignoring everything else, when we know there is well-established precedent in this place. In fact, almost a sitting week does not go by when the scrutiny committee will say that a particular aspect of government legislation has engaged the Human Rights Act. We all agree in this place that if there is a high need—in this case community safety is that high need—it is appropriate to do so.
The opposition has released an explanatory draft of legislation dealing with anti-consorting laws. Let me be very clear that these laws are aimed at keeping our community safe. They are balanced; they are measured. In brief, what it would require is for the Chief Police Officer to apply to the Supreme Court to have an organisation designated. Only if the Supreme Court is satisfied would an organisation be designated. The Chief Police Officer would need to present the evidence for that. The Chief Police Officer would then need to identify individuals as part of that organisation that would then be subject to control orders, again only if the Supreme Court is satisfied. There are checks and balances in the legislation that allow for a number of exemptions and defences.
If we are serious about keeping our community safe, if we are going to listen to the Chief Police Officer, to the Australian Federal Police Association, to NSW Police and to the victims of these crimes in our suburbs, we need to make sure that ACT Policing has all the tools. I acknowledge that the government has provided additional resources to ACT Policing. But we would not be in the position we are now if we had had these laws in the first place. The evidence for that is clear.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video