<< back to archive index Speeches Regarding Bills Date: 19th September, 2006 Subject: Speech by The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS, on New South Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Bill 2006 From Hansard The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: "This bill is part of the law and order auction leading up to the State election. It is interesting that the second reading speech was delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary, Tony Stewart, in the other place, rather than by the Attorney General. I wonder whether the Attorney General wants to distance himself from this sort of legislation at a personal level. I am rather sorry to hear that Tony Stewart resigned from his position of Parliamentary Secretary after having a blood alcohol reading of 0.06, given that the new level of 0.05 would not have been an illegal reading under the old level of 0.08, which is now recognised as the higher level. Tony Stewart is doing the right thing with regard to drugs. If one really wants to do something about gangs and crime, it may be good to take a less punitive approach to drugs. The fact that they are illegal, in addition to compounding the harm, makes them extremely lucrative, and of course this is the basis of crime. Indeed, it could be argued that poker machines were legalised because gambling was such a big problem with organised crime. At one level the Government is being pious about doing the right thing in terms of getting the hardworking member for Bankstown to resign, but at another level, by making drugs illegal, it is allowing a large profit motive for organised crime. My view is that this legislation is fundamentally about the election in Cronulla, and that the bikie gangs and the supposed organised crime is really a fig leaf thrown in. The Opposition's response to the bill is that it should have been introduced a long time ago. If the problem is genuinely the bikies, that is true. But if that is the case, why does the Opposition support the bill? According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the bill has two targets. One is organised criminal gangs and the other is rioters_that is, where people form a gang or mob on an ad hoc basis. The second is really aimed at what happened in Cronulla, where it seems white Australians terrorised people of Middle Eastern appearance and there was then the retaliation of ethnic groups in cars in Maroubra, where the provocations escalated. In Western Australia a gang crime squad has been targeting biker gangs for some time. The squad has the power to break down fortifications, as is proposed in proposed section 210F (1). The Northern Territory is also proposing gang legislation. I have received communications from the Law Society, which is of the view that this part of the bill is unnecessary. The society contends that the aggravating factors are already taken into account in sentencing under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, and that it is unnecessary to create new offences. It is also argued that under the Sentencing Act the list of aggravating offences is non-exhaustive, so that any factors surrounding an offence can be taken into consideration. New section 87MA creates a new power to disperse groups that are the subject of a public disorder authorisation under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The Law Society suggests that an amendment is needed to this proposed section to require that before a direction is given a police officer must believe, on reasonable grounds, that the dispersal of the group would assist in controlling or preventing public disorder. The society also believes the penalty of 50 penalty units is excessive and that a more appropriate penalty would be five penalty units. The Law Society echoed concerns of the Legislative Review Committee relating to the new offences of participation in criminal groups. The concerns relate to the vague meaning of "participate", which could mean that a person may be criminally liable for participation in a group without actually having the intent to advance the criminal objectives of the group, as set out in proposed section 93IJ. Similarly unclear is the phrase "contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity" in proposed section 93IK. The concern with this vagary is that section 93IK carries a penalty of five years imprisonment. This is a serious penalty for conduct that is peripheral to any criminal enterprise, and is therefore a totally inappropriate penalty. That is why I have said this is a law and order auction bill before the election, rather than a piece of legislation to be taken seriously. The Law Society has valid concerns, and I share those concerns. This Government is in election mode and the Opposition is encouraging and supporting this lurch to the right in New South Wales. It is pointless my proposing amendments to the bill, because the Opposition will not contemplate supporting anything that appears to soften the Government's approach on law and order issues. The ultimate end point for all this silliness and point scoring, when combined with the paranoia surrounding terrorism and the policies of the Howard Government that have produced a group of people who now are angry enough with Australia and Australians to commit an act of terrorism, will be that our civil rights will be trashed and we will have a police state in New South Wales. It is a very foolish approach and this bill is a result of that folly. The bill should be opposed."

home | about | ace at work | issues & projects | media | links | sitemap