Page 4540 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 26 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.30): The ACT Greens are supportive of this bill and of the intention and motivation of the government in seeking to find new and sophisticated ways of tackling organised crime and disrupting criminal gangs.
This is a complex area of legislation, where we need to find effective ways of legislating to protect community safety while at the same time being highly aware of the risks of unintended consequences. This is a careful balancing exercise, and the Greens believe that the Attorney-General and the Justice and Community Safety Directorate have succeeded in striking that balance in this bill. That said, we will be monitoring the impacts of this bill and any future amendments very carefully to ensure that we are not seeing any of those unintended outcomes.
Of particular note to me and to the Greens are the definitions of gang and organised crime. As the explanatory statement and the briefings I have received clearly indicate, this bill is aimed squarely at outlaw motorcycle gangs and serious organised crime. A quick review of the literature surrounding these definitional issues highlights that across Australia, and indeed the world, jurisdictions have struggled to come up with a consistent and uniform approach. These definitional questions are really important when it comes to ensuring that this legislation does what we intend it to.
When it comes to the amendment of the affray offence, there are two elements. The first requires that two or more other people are present and also engaging in the violent conduct or threat of violence. It has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The second offence requires that five or more other people are present and also engaging in the violent conduct or threat of violence. It has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Similarly, in other amendments in the bill, a criminal group is defined as a group of two or more people that has as an objective engaging in conduct which constitutes an indictable offence or obtaining a benefit for the group or someone else.
These definitions give us cause to pause and think carefully about their potential application. Could they, for example, be applied to family members or associates who may not necessarily be connected with what a reasonable person would describe as organised crime but perhaps happen to be present? Similarly, I am highly conscious of concerns that have been raised and subsequently realised regarding consorting laws in other states that have unduly targeted members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. I have talked about examples of those impacts in this place previously.
In line with the targeted approach outlined in the explanatory statement, and the position of ACT Policing, on balance we accept that this definitional approach should achieve the desired outcomes. In drawing this conclusion, I also put weight on the checks and balances that will be afforded to both ACAT and the Supreme Court in applying the penalties provided for under this legislation.
We believe that this legislation does deliver a strong message that thuggery and serious and organised crime are not welcome in this city, while guarding against misuse of such legislation. As a minister and as an ACT Greens member of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video