Page 1652 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
After extensive analysis, the Goldsworthy review of the legislation and the powers with respect to criminal gangs made a very specific recommendation regarding anti-consorting laws. Let me quote from that report, which I tabled in the Assembly in February this year. I am not sure whether the shadow attorney-general has bothered reading the 146-page report, but let me summarise some of the key elements for him:
The review recommends that the ACT Government should not move to implement a consorting type offence that is similar to the New South Wales model, due to the issues raised in this review regarding the effectiveness and the actual ability to target serious and organised crime with such offences.
Let me quote further from the report:
When faced with moral panic, it is often the knee jerk reaction … to enact draconian laws that have little … practical value.
That the Canberra Liberals would bring forward a motion that flies in the face of an evidence-based analysis by a nationally recognised expert about the situation here in the ACT and across Australia says something about how conservative these Canberra Liberals are, and what they believe about the importance of evidence-based policy. They are happy to stoke the moral panic. They are happy to jump onto their one card again—their knee-jerk reaction of suggesting anti-consorting laws.
If a national expert is not enough, let us look locally at people whose role it is in society, whose sworn duty it is in society as officers of the court, and who make their living out of presenting and analysing evidence. These are the people that, in question time today, Mr Hanson suggested somehow should not be listened to as much because, “Gee, they might have people as their clients.” It was an outrageous slur on our legal profession. The ACT Bar Association said today:
There is no evidence that anti-consorting laws work in Australia or would work in the ACT …
The Bar Association strongly opposes the introduction of such Draconian, unfocused and unnecessary laws in the Territory.
Let me go to the Law Society. Again these are officers of the court, people who are sworn to do their duty to the people of the ACT, to the court of the ACT, to uphold ethics and to make sure that they are looking at evidence-based ways of living. The President of the Law Society said:
The Society has previously stated its opposition to anti-consorting laws and remains opposed to their implementation in the ACT …
The ACT’s existing laws already provide police with effective tools to fight serious and organised crime. Where anti-consorting laws have been introduced in other jurisdictions, they have proven to be largely ineffective.
We support the ACT Government’s established response in rejecting such laws.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video