Page 1651 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(G) introducing cancellation of a licence under the Liquor Act 2010 or the Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 on the basis on a person’s criminal activities;
(c) the effectiveness of the Government’s response to organised crime evidenced in police data showing the total number of members associated with ACT chapters of serious criminal gangs is estimated at approximately 30-40 people, a decrease from the previously reported numbers of approximately 70 members in 2018-19; and
(d) that countering serious and organised crime by criminal gangs and maintaining public safety is a primary focus of ACT Policing. Through Taskforce Nemesis, ACT Policing continues to proactively disrupt criminal gang members to deter and detect criminal activity. ACT Policing has and will continue to deploy resources to target and disrupt those seeking to cause harm in our community; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) continue to use evidence to lead its policy and legislative approach to crime; (b) ensure adequate consultation with the community in the development of its policy and legislative approach to crime; and
(c) implement further measures, which target the profit of criminal gangs through the Confiscation of Criminal Assets (Unexplained Wealth) Amendment Bill 2020, as a matter of urgency.”.
When the shadow attorney-general introduced the Crimes (Anti-Consorting) Amendment Bill 2019, it was not supported by the Assembly. Why? It is because they are not proven to be effective measures to combat organised criminal groups. It is because investing resources into strengthening operational law enforcement responses is shown to be effective, and it is because the bill did not comply with the ACT Human Rights Act.
I have noted before in this place the importance of independent reviews of anti-consorting. The New South Wales Ombudsman recommended that they be repealed. Madam Assistant Speaker, when you have the privilege and the responsibility of being in government, it is vital to take an evidence-based approach to legislation, not a headline-based approach to legislation.
Criminal legislation is not a place to play populist politics. It should not be such a place even for the far right. That is why this government engaged a recognised national leader regarding the analysis of the impact of provisions dealing with organised and violent gangs. Associate Professor Goldsworthy has decades of experience as a police officer. He is recognised as Australia’s lead analyst in criminology in these areas of law. His extensive report, looking at the effectiveness of the laws that are in the ACT, and that could be in the ACT and in Australia, notes that anti-consorting laws are not effective in targeting organised crime. I repeat: are not effective in targeting organised crime. That is the first question that a responsible government must ask about any potential reform of the criminal justice system: will it have its desired effect? And the answer about anti-consorting laws is no.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video