Question Time

HIGH COURT DECISION, TOTANI

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:17): My first question is to the Premier. Does the government now regret not taking the opposition's advice to bring the bikie legislation back to the parliament for amendment following the Supreme Court's rejection of it, rather than appealing the decision of the Supreme Court to the High Court?

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:17): Let me say this: I just want to repeat and support the words of my learned colleague the Attorney-General, as someone, of course, whose family has had hundreds of years of interest in jurisprudence. Any bikie, whether they are at the Talbot Hotel now sinking a Jim Beam, popping a pill or going out the back to fire up a bong, need not celebrate too early—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —because the fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of our legislative framework—the suite of measures—remains in place. This is one small part of it. Can I say—

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question was specifically whether the government now regrets not having brought the matter back for amendment, rather than taking an appeal to the High Court.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold that point of order. The Premier is answering that and has said no.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I just said no. My advice to the bikies is: if you celebrate now, wait and see what we are doing next, because we are already preparing for a new measure to deal with this issue through the law—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —hopefully, getting the support of the opposition, who always seem to want to defend the bikies. We will keep going. We are going to keep coming at them. But, let me read from Justice Heydon, the dissent, the mischief and its solution. The opening remarks of Heydon's dissenting judgement in the High Court today—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: 'In 2007, at least according—'

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Transport!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Isn't it interesting—only the bikies and the Liberals are celebrating the High Court's decision today. You know—

Mr PISONI: Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Premier, there is a point of order.

Mr PISONI: I ask that the Premier refer to standing order 127, reflections on other members. There is no celebration by the Liberals, and I ask him to withdraw. It's outrageous. It's an outrageous suggestion.

The SPEAKER: It is a valid point of order. I would just ask you to be careful, Premier, with your comments.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Okay. Well let's go to another learned colleague—

Mr PISONI: Point of order: I asked him to withdraw, and you upheld the point of order.

The SPEAKER: You didn't ask him to withdraw; you just said—you mentioned it.

Mr PISONI: I did ask him to withdraw, Madam Chair.

The SPEAKER: Premier, will you withdraw your remark?

The Hon. M.D. RANN: How can I withdraw remarks when, on a suite of measures on law and order, the Liberals have opposed them?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will sit down. Point of order.

Mr PISONI: The Premier is defying your ruling.

The SPEAKER: Premier, I have asked you to withdraw the remark. Could you withdraw the remark.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: What is the personal reflection that I have made, Madam Speaker?

The SPEAKER: Member for Unley, what were the exact words you were objecting to?

Mr PISONI: That the Liberals are celebrating today's judgement. That is what the Premier said and I have asked him to withdraw it. You have asked him to withdraw and so far he has refused to do so.

The SPEAKER: I don't think he did say that. He said 'it appears to be only'. At this point I will not uphold the point of order but I am going to read the Hansard and I will come back if necessary.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Thank you, ma'am. Okay, Heydon's dissent—'The mischief and its solution':

In 2007, at least according to the then Attorney-General for the State of South Australia:

'outlaw motorcycle gangs remain prominent within the criminal class of South Australia and continue to expand. [Police] intelligence indicates that outlaw motorcycle gang members are involved in many and continuing criminal activities including murder; drug manufacture, importation and distribution; fraud; vice; blackmail; intimidation of witnesses; serious assaults; the organised theft and re-identification of motor vehicles and motorcycles; public disorder offences; firearms offences; and money-laundering.'

But it was not just the seriousness of the crimes that troubled the Attorney-General. He went on:

'Although comprising a small proportion of the state's population, outlaw motorcycle gang members and associates commit a disproportionate—'

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, the question was about whether the parliament has to redress what has been overturned by the High Court. The Premier is just quoting what the former attorney-general put on the record some years ago and has nothing to do with the High Court's judgment.

The SPEAKER: No, I don't uphold that point of order because he is reading the judgment and it does reflect back on the question, I believe.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It continues:

'Although comprising a small proportion of the state's population, outlaw motorcycle gang members and associates commit a disproportionate number of serious crimes. Outlaw motorcycle gang crime affects all levels of society. It is varied in scope, expertise, sophistication and influence. Incidents in which outlaw motorcycle gang members and associates are suspected of involvement...pose a risk to public safety. Outlaw motorcycle gangs are increasingly infiltrating legitimate industries and using professionals to insulate their criminal activity from law enforcement.'

Then back to the judge:

On 14 May 2090 Attorney-General laid before the House of Assembly a document giving his reasons for making a section 10 declaration in relation to the motorcycle club of which the respondents allegedly are members. In it he stressed the club's capacity to instil fear into the public and to induce the withdrawal of criminal allegations against its members.

This is what the judge then says in the High Court:

South Australia aspires to government by the rule of law. A government seeking to foster the rule of law has a primary duty to preserve the safety of persons within the Queen's peace—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —and to preserve the government itself—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —from criminal violence and other criminal activities. It is a legitimate expectation of the governed that their government will fulfil that duty. The legislation under challenge in this case is the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008. The impugned Act was enacted on the initiative of an executive which believed that it was not enough merely to respond to crime after it occurred by seeking to attribute fault and dispense punishment or order reparation. That executive thought that measures were necessary to forestall what it saw as very serious and socially damaging crimes. It thought that failure to implement those measures would be an abdication from duty. Like Coke—

You would not even know who that was.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —it thought that 'preventing justice excelleth punishing justice.' It sought to combine established techniques to meet modern problems. The measures employed in the impugned Act had the object of protecting the public from violence at the hands of organisations involved in serious crime by disrupting and restricting the activities of those organisations.

We are keeping going on this. We have a raft of measures in place and they have not been able to knock out any of the others, so there is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —a massive legislative shield that is there in place and we are coming back into the parliament next year with new legislation to deal with this issue and we are coming at them with even more measures.