Page 5283 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: Madam Deputy Speaker; my apologies.
Ms Cheyne: You looked up, Madam Deputy Speaker; I thought I would help.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not so picky about these things. People often make that mistake.
MR HANSON: Thanks for the usual interjection. The principal issue is that we have created a vacuum, and into that vacuum we are seeing bikies come—outlaw motorcycle gangs. As the evidence has shown, through firebombings, shootings, intimidation, increased activity, the increase from one gang to three gangs, runs by motorcycle gangs—and we have seen them recently in this town—the sad reality is that the absence of laws in this jurisdiction is the cause, in the main, of the increased activity that we are seeing. That is based on the advice of the experts, including the Chief Police Officer—not just the current but the previous one—and the Australian Federal Police Association.
The fact that the absence of these laws is the cause of the problem, the fact that we have a significant problem, is not a matter of dispute. It is acknowledged. Indeed, it was acknowledged by the Labor Party in 2015-16, when they realised that this needed to be addressed and they drafted and circulated an exposure draft for anti-consorting laws. They were shot down internally and they have left us with a vacuum of laws that has led to an ever-increasing explosion of violence in our suburbs.
It is clear to me today that there is no form of laws of this sort—which we need to address the bikie problem that we have—that will be acceptable to Labor Party members or Greens party members. If you introduce laws of some sort, they will say, “We have problems with the human rights.” If you address those issues, they will say, “They’re not effective because they’re not tough enough.” No matter what you do, they are going to shift the goalposts. There is an underlying objection that the Labor Party and the Greens party have to these laws. No matter what we do, they are going to squib it, and that is without doubt. It is quite clear from the language that we have heard today that they are just looking for excuses.
I will go to a couple of the points that have been raised. Mr Gentleman does not like these laws because there is an interim order of 72 hours and he thinks that is not long enough. So the man who has always been on about human rights concerns is now saying, “The interim orders: we want them to be longer.” I have already spoken to Mr Ramsay, the Attorney-General, and said we would be open to an amendment on that specific issue. I do not care if it is longer. If the advice from the government and the police is, “We want longer than 72 hours,” that is great. Let us move an amendment.
Now they are saying—and Mr Rattenbury joined in on this one—that our law, as we have tabled it, says that if you have a close family relationship you will be excluded from the laws. They are saying, “That’s not tough enough. We want to stop families associating; we want to stop families consorting. Your laws are not tough enough, Mr Hanson.” As I have said to Mr Ramsay and Mr Rattenbury, that is fine; if that is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video