Page 5284 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the advice from the government, if that is what it is now, we will accept that amendment. But do we see that amendment here today? No. They are using that as their excuse to not support this legislation because it does not go far enough, because it is not tough enough, while for the last nine years they have been arguing that those sorts of laws are too tough. Which one is it?
If it is not tough enough for you, if it does include exemptions for families, if it does have interim orders that are too short for you, where is your amendment? As I said to Mr Ramsay and as I said to Mr Rattenbury, what we could do today is agree to this in principle; if you want a longer time to move your amendments, we will then deal with them. But, no; they did not want to take that approach. We know that what will happen is that people will keep coming here to the ACT because we do not have these laws. We have seen any number of headlines, any number of pieces of advice, that confirm that, to the extent that outlaw motorcycle gangs have sought legal advice and have basically said that we are a soft touch.
With respect to the two objections about effectiveness and human rights, whichever way we move, they will use whichever argument suits them on the day. Mr Rattenbury has previously said in Hansard:
… 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 … competing interests.
That is a competing interest, isn’t it—the rights of outlaw motorcycle gangs, violent criminals, or the rights of our community? Today we know which side the government and the Greens are going to come down on. We worked very hard on these laws, as members opposite indeed have acknowledged. The Human Rights Commissioner has said, “We are happy that the legislation satisfies human rights,” and said further, in regard to this legislation, “It is definitely better than others. We looked mainly at New South Wales and Victoria. The Victorian one is actually, on my understanding, incompatible. With all of the adjustments, we are satisfied that it is better than other jurisdictions.”
This mob opposite now are not interested in human rights. They are saying, “It’s not effective enough. We want family to be included. The interim orders are not going to be long enough.” They have changed their tune, and they have only done it as an excuse not to support this legislation today. That is entirely evident.
In terms of effectiveness—and I have gone to this in part—it is quite clear that these laws would be effective. The situation in New South Wales is different, because, as members would be aware, the police in New South Wales have two suites of tools that they can use. They have broad-based anti-consorting laws that they have used 8,500 times. They are easy for the police to use. The laws they also have, the criminal organisations control laws, are harder to use. I acknowledge that they are harder to use. But that does not mean they are bad, and it does not mean they are ineffective. In New South Wales they have not used them because they have these other laws that make it a lot easier. But, as the Human Rights Commissioner has noted, it is very likely that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video