Page 433 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I’ve said consistently … that police need preventative powers to ensure that we can prevent the sort of crime I’ve just referred to, occurring, where we can.
We must stop Canberra, the ACT, being a safe haven for bikies. We must give our police the tools that police in other states have.
The Crimes (Anti-Consorting) Amendment Bill that I have tabled today responds to community concerns about intimidating, harassing and violent conduct. The bill mirrors the New South Wales laws as they were modified, following the Ombudsman’s report.
The bill seeks to protect the public’s right, particularly the right to life and security of person. It is designed to allow people to enjoy security in their homes and streets, free from the intimidating and violent conduct of others. But it does have limitations. It does have protections against misuse. It will, we believe, meet community expectations of safety and reasonable application.
The bill will prevent certain habitual consorting between defined persons. This only affects consorting with persons already convicted of criminal behaviour, only once an official warning has been issued and only if there are multiple contacts with multiple offenders, only outside legitimate purposes, and only for a limited time.
The last time we attempted to bring in anti-criminal gang legislation, there were a lot of claims from Labor that it could not be supported because of human rights issues. Those human rights issues are important, and I note again that we have had a full and constructive relationship with the Human Rights Commissioner and her staff throughout this entire process.
But our laws are always about balancing rights—the rights to association, in this case, against the rights of every other citizen to be safe in their homes and on our streets. This bill does limit human rights, but I believe that they are not just reasonable, proportionate and targeted but essential to our prime responsibility to keep our community safe.
As defined in the act, firstly, a person must meet with at least two identified convicted criminals on at least two different occasions—to do so after being given an official warning in relation to each of those offenders and to do so in a way not to be listed as a legitimate form of contact. That is a very limited set of actions and can only be applied to those repeatedly and deliberately seeking contact with known criminals.
Secondly, there is an extensive list of associations that will not be subject to this bill—so extensive that almost any legitimate contact will be covered. This, as presented, includes associations such as meeting family members, accessing health or welfare services, including housing, employment, rental or financial services, and it extends to rehabilitation, counselling, and drug and alcohol welfare services. It also provides a general exemption for contact which is, in the view of the court, “reasonable in the circumstances”. As I said the list is extensive, but if a party or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video