Page 435 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
No reasonable and equally practicable alternatives having a lesser effect on the freedom have been identified. A conclusion that s 93X goes no further than is reasonably necessary in order to achieve its objective is therefore open.
As stated, even though there are distinctions, the case shows that the laws upon which the bill was drafted were found to be valid and effective by the High Court. Since then I note that it has been subject to amendments, improvements and additional protections following the Ombudsman’s report.
In the public debate on these laws recently, the latest opposition from the Labor Party was that they have no interest in bringing these laws forward because they are “ineffective”. I do not think there has been a more nonsensical response to a serious issue in my time in the Assembly. When I started, these laws were described by the Labor Party as “draconian”, in 2009. When we last attempted to introduce these laws, the Labor Party said they had been “overused” in New South Wales, and now they are “ineffective”. They just shift their narrative to suit the cause or the argument of the day.
The reason I included the history of this situation, with all of the facts and all of the results in a chronological fashion, is to put on the record and state as a fact that they do work, that they are effective and that they are driving bikies into the ACT. And the CPO has said as much. Those facts are inescapable and they cannot be disputed, unless the minister is calling the CPO a liar. To claim otherwise is blindingly ignorant or wilfully deceptive. But this case is too important. In all seriousness, lives are at stake.
It is clear that the ALP’s refusal to introduce these laws to keep our community safe has nothing to do with human rights. It has nothing to do with effectiveness or any other legitimate concern. Labor in New South Wales or in other jurisdictions do not oppose identical laws. The real reason has to do with Labor members wanting to keep their jobs and not get the chop from the unions and the factions, as happened to Simon Corbell after he released draft laws in 2015.
Madam Speaker, while violence rages in our suburbs, those opposite will put their own interests and those of their factional and union mates ahead of our community. And if you think this war is an illusion or some manufactured scare campaign, we have just heard of some of the terrifying acts of violence being committed on our streets since we got out of step with New South Wales in 2009.
The Labor Party have to explain why they oppose these laws in a way that makes sense. I suspect we all know the reason, but that will not avail them if there is a maiming or a killing. If that happens, the blame is a hundred per cent theirs. The blood will be on their hands. Let them explain to the grieving families why they would not support these laws.
In conclusion, the time for debate on the need for this legislation is long past. I have been through the arguments for and opposition to this bill. I have shown that there is a very real and present danger to our community, right here and right now, and we are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video