Bills

Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:47): Whilst the community remain concerned about the incidence of serious and organised crime and accept that it is infiltrated by and operated by, to some degree, the outlaw motorcycle gangs, there is also, I have certainly found in the last 13 days, a growing concern amongst some of our community in respect of the criminalising of seemingly innocuous activities. This is an interesting aspect which comes about not on the principled position of the debate out there as to whether the usual purview of the judiciary should be transferred to the executive and to be in breach of doctrines, etc., but the very simple question: how is it that members of the community can be charged with very serious crimes just for talking to somebody in a public area?

Potentially, of course, it is a fairly scary concept to make indictable offences particular forms of activity that are innocent for most of the population, and that is not just them meeting with somebody in a public place but also wearing certain logos or going to certain events that the general public may attend. It is, I do not think reckless, rather more inadvertent and perhaps passive, acceptance that there may be some innocent victims along the way, but that that is necessary to deal with this evil. Is this the introduction of legislation which could capture innocent people until they prove themselves to be free of the allegations rather than the reverse? Should we turn around the normal processes of investigation and enforcement?

Should we introduce disproportionate and unequal severity of our laws? Is three years' imprisonment for associating with somebody in public—as evil as one of the parties may be in that process—justified relative to other laws? We commonly see sentences of imprisonment of under four years for the rape of somebody, and even shorter nonparole periods. It raises questions in the general community in our attempt to smash down this rather offensive group in our society and use all the laws and capacity to do so as to what it is we are sacrificing along the way.

As the debate becomes more known to the public, and remembering that it has all been kept fairly secret at this stage—the government have not gone out with draft copies of the bill for general consultation, and as I say, not consulted with the profession and the like—it certainly raises some concern.

The other aspect I want to mention is the inadvertence and the provision in our legislation which does not allow for the change of name, or does not allow someone to avoid application of the act on the basis that the criminal organisation in question changes its name. On that latter point, it is understandable why the government have added in a provision for capturing someone by virtue of stopping them avoiding being dealt with. We had a case in South Australia where, on the face of it, one of the outlaw motorcycle gangs had actually done just that: the Finks group changed its name to the Mongols, and there was a question raised about whether that would frustrate the furthering and successful declaration against that organisation.

I can see what the government have attempted to do, but herein lies the problem: it means that the association can be at any time. In short, the way this has been drafted in relation to change of name is disturbingly broad. If members re-form into another group entirely, that group also remains a criminal organisation. But the problem is that there is no time limit on this. The time for which one has met with, or been seen in the presence of these other parties to comply with the provisions of the act, may be 20 years ago.

There is nothing in this legislation which purports to have any time limit against this, nor does it appear to be able to give any relief to a criminal organisation, or the members who subsequently find a new life and decide they are going to be good people and contribute to the community. It seems that once on the list, always on the list. The conduct of association is not time sensitive and, therefore, you can be caught up with attending events from 20 or 30 years before. I find that concerning, and we need to address it.

On the question of capturing the innocent, I also raise the question about protests. Let us assume for the moment we use the example of the people who have assembled and remain in a quasi-resident basis on the front of Parliament House. They have been there for, I think, nearly three months. Their cause is to bring to public attention their plight in attempting to save the Repatriation General Hospital. They have a worthy cause, and they are wanting to make sure that we, as members of the parliament, hear their plight and their concerns, and they are undertaking a peaceful protest in support of their objective.

At some stage during the course of their sit-in or sleep-in there has been a concern raised about whether they should be allowed to stay there, particularly as there is an allegation that one or more of them is a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, or at least a past member. Now, I place no weight personally on whether or not that is the case. I have no idea. But what I do say is this: if that is the case, if a person is found to have been a participant in an organisation which, as of a few weeks to come when this legislation is to pass (if this government gets its way), is declared a criminal organisation by this new process, then what is to become of those out on the front steps of Parliament House who are there innocently protesting their own issue, namely, the hospital and who are found to be in the company of a person who is determined to be a member or former member of a criminal organisation?

Are they going to be swept up into potential prosecutions and are they going to be otherwise deterred from continuing in their public presence undertaking their lawful protest for fear that they might be caught up in that protest? I am very concerned effectively about the boundaries of who this is going to apply to, who is going to be caught inadvertently, what groups are going to be in the category of criminal organisations, without, perhaps, adequate review, and, finally, those who will need to pay for the litigious way out of trying to prove their innocence. So, there are a lot of aspects to this in its application that we remain concerned about.

Other governments, we are informed by the police, in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia are considering this expanded participation offence law and its corresponding application of an executive role in what is formerly a judicial role. The senior members of our major crime and serious and organised crime who meet regularly, obviously, to try to work in a concerted way to deal with the serious and organised crime matters across the country, confirm that it is their wish to advance legislation such as we are doing here and which is already applicable in Queensland.

It is a matter for other states to do as they wish. My understanding at present is that we have a declaration process through the courts here and in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The ACT and Tasmania have elected not to go down that course. They do not have SOCCA legislation as these other states do. Potentially they are more vulnerable to not having sufficient armoury, but it seems they are doing okay. I do not know, I cannot answer that question. But, without even SOCCA legislation, they seem to be managing the situation. It may be that they are looking and waiting to see what happens in those other states before they jump in. Certainly, they have not even been tempted from the wave of reforms that took place in 2012-13.

Victoria, it should be noted, has a bill of rights. I have always been a strong advocate of the fact that introducing a bill of rights is problematic (and will be problematic if we do it) and, as a country, that we should not do it. Victoria, I think, faces the problem that we all feared would be the reaction to having a bill of rights; that is, the people who are most likely to use it to protect their freedom of speech and association, to carry arms, or whatever, are motorcycle gangs and people who are in the criminal world. Unfortunately, where we have bills of rights it is these groups that have taken the most legislative advantage of them.

It may well be that the existence of a bill of rights in Victoria has influenced them to not jump on the bandwagon. What I am informed of by the police—and they have been, I think, full and frank in presenting to us the limitations they have had, the discussions they are wanting to pursue and what their objectives are—and I have absolutely no reason to doubt them, is that Victoria in particular is worried that the advance of more strict and strenuous legislation in Western Australia and New South Wales (who may be considering it), and we certainly have it on the table, will result in a number of members of those organisations transferring their operations and even residence to Victoria.

That must be a frightening thought, but it is one which I think is inevitable if we accept that the data that has been presented by the police in Queensland is the case. Secondly, it is likely to occur when there is a failure to have a uniform response. Inevitably, you are going to have those who can seek refuge in a less restricted environment or less criminalising environment for them. So, is it therefore appropriate that we should advance this in South Australia in the clear knowledge that we are going to transfer, or at least temporarily transfer, the problem somewhere else?

Arguably, because Queensland claims (apparently) that there has been a reduction of people walking around with insignia and black jackets and so on along the beaches of Queensland (the Gold Coast, Brisbane and the like) and they have been free of this presence in the public arena, that has resulted in the public feeling safer because there is not this intimidating presence of these people in the public area. That may be the case, but we, of course, are informed that, as a result of this, just in the last few weeks one outlaw motorcycle group has come to South Australia for a national meeting, with well over 200 people attending, and then another meeting of some 50-odd.

It is possible that they are flexing their muscles in the presence of South Australians to let them know that they are around, that they want to be a part of the furniture in South Australia and that they are ready to move in. I do not know. What we do know is that, apparently, they have not been too much trouble while they are here, in the sense that they have been under observation, but that they are moving in at least to have events. This is a group that operates in Queensland and also in New South Wales. To avoid the consorting laws that are strong in New South Wales, some of this group came in groups of two over the border, had their meeting here and then went back.

I would be unsurprised if people in Victoria or even Tasmania might think, 'Well, we might be invaded soon with all of these bikie refugees. What are we going to do about it?' That is why it has been acknowledged in our enforcement agencies and our governments around Australia that it is necessary to have a national approach and, accordingly, just a few weeks ago in Canberra, the commonwealth and state attorneys and police ministers signed up to a National Organised Crime Response Plan for 2015-18 which essentially commits to a combined effort and a unified approach in fighting such crime.

It is very important to avoid this transfer of the problem across the border. I think that it is probably selfish of Queensland and South Australia to advance and think, 'Well, we do not really give a toss about what happens in Victoria. If they get overloaded with these people, bad luck. At least we will get rid of them, at least we will get a good headline.' Possibly that is what Campbell Newman thought that he was going to get in Queensland, that he would be able to say, 'They are off the streets. We have won the war against the bikies and, if they have moved down to New South Wales or come over here for weekends or have a beach house in Victoria, we do not care.' I think that is a very selfish approach.

Therefore, I commend the ministers and the commitments that were made at the federal and state level at the recent national meeting in Canberra because the initiatives that they are looking at are really important. They include the prevalence of methamphetamines in the community, the need to look at gun-related crime and violence, that crime groups are committing technology-enabled crime and cybercrime, the need to develop a national approach to targeting financial crime, tackling the criminal proceeds of organised crime and reducing barriers to information sharing between the agencies.

In all of those areas that they accept need to have initiatives and strategies built around them to advance whether it is tax reform or whether it is tightened proceeds of crime legislation, unexplained wealth, confiscation of assets, gun prohibitions, they understand—and those who are advising them in our enforcement world, particularly our police forces, have a very clear understanding of what the extent of the problem is and where they need to go on it. They have also signed up to a commitment that they do it at a national level.

I commend that plan to members to have a look at because it outlines a very comprehensive list of how the different structures operate and in some ways it is actually comforting to read of the level of entities that are vested with the responsibility not just to protect us but to investigate and provide policy and advice around the country, both at a national level and a state level.

I do not want to underestimate how important that is but I do not think it is acceptable for our government to respond to the reform requirements to deal with serious and organised crime regarding outlaw motorcycle gangs without having proper regard for how that will affect other jurisdictions, especially when they have signed up to that agreement. I find that insincere and I see it as quite immature of our government and, frankly, I am embarrassed by it, and that they would want to be so childish in their approach to this, so insistent that they get a headline of their own advance that they are not cognisant of how short-term the benefit may be for South Australians and how detrimental it may be to others. I just find that approach immature and really not acceptable.

On the question of outcomes from Queensland and New South Wales, I will turn first to Queensland. In Queensland, with the expanded orders, apart from the reduction in the public presence along beaches and public areas we are advised that in the 12 months prior to its legislation there were, in outlaw motorcycle gang environments, 10 shootings, 25 serious assaults, six affrays or riots and two murders. Since the legislation passed none of these have occurred in this category. We are only talking about the last year; nevertheless, that is the claim.

So public shootouts—which, I must say, are events that are frequently, although not mainly, of each other; that is, murdering each other, the two murders confirmed to be of each other—and serious assaults, etc., are usually with a rival gang member, as I have canvassed before. That is an impressive situation, to find that post legislation there appears to have been none of this public brawling, with weapons, that is just terrifying to the public. That is very encouraging.

What I found even more impressive is that since the legislation there have been 70 reports of extortion or similar offences. What that means, what I accept in the translation of that, is that since the legislation has passed people feel safer to come forward and actually report crime by persons who are suspected of being members of these gangs. That is very encouraging. Disassociation laws are claimed to have reduced the membership of outlaw motorcycle gangs by 30 per cent, and no new chapter has opened.

The briefings that have been provided have not detailed prosecutions or successful prosecutions in Queensland but on my review, brief as it is, there are two cases that have had media coverage, both of which have been withdrawn, as I explained before. So it appears that the threat of this legislation has been enough to keep these people indoors, in their own houses, and not meeting publicly and not shooting up each other publicly. That is what it tells me. That is a positive, because it also means that their very presence might encourage others to come forward.

All that is good, but is it only temporary? Is it only as a result of the fact that these people are still doing this in their own lounge rooms or because they have moved interstate? I am an optimistic person, but I am bit cynical when it comes to the reform of some of these people; if they suddenly start reading the Bible I would be starting to count my sheep if I were their neighbour. I do not accept that there would be some miraculous transformation of these people, that they are all joining reading clubs and having their tattoos removed. If they do, great; but I am not confident that is what is happening at the moment.

In New South Wales, where the strengthened consorting laws have been in place, there have apparently been 39 people charged with consorting, 32 of whom are, apparently, members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. These cases are pending. One person, who was a member of an OMG, has pleaded guilty and received a sentence of seven months' imprisonment. Apparently, the shootings of these people comprised 9 per cent of the state data and is down to 2 per cent. They have also experienced the decreased presence on the streets, and that appears to have had some direct impact.

I think it is important that the public is informed where there has been a demonstrable improvement arising out of any legislation. I think it is reasonable for any government to claim credit for it, or seek their support in our parliaments and the like. But, the material is pretty anecdotal to date. Again, members may be aware that, in Queensland, aside from the review by Mr Byrne QC, there is also a grant being issued to Mr Goldsworthy at Bond University—not the member for Kavel; he is not escaping that quickly—to do some work on the statistics and to identify the effectiveness of the measures which, at this stage, as I say, are anecdotal.

It is hard to realistically identify whether or not they have been a success, or whether they have transferred the problem. To date, Mr Goldsworthy has not been able to provide that data; my understanding is it is still being collated. It will be important to see that when it occurs, but I am concerned that we certainly should be moving in the same direction across Australia in dealing with this. I am not a nationalist: I am a federalist, and I frequently stand in this chamber to argue that we should not just be going into harmonisation mode with other states and end up with material that is the lowest common denominator.

What I do say is that, if we are just going to transfer the problem to our neighbour, then it is immature and irresponsible for us to do that. In some ways, it is like having a problem of corellas at Strathalbyn. You send off the smoke guns or discharge the boom noises, or whatever they are called, and scare all the corellas away, and then the corellas fly over to Mr Pederick's electorate—

Mr Pederick: Hammond.

Ms CHAPMAN: —in the seat of Hammond, and they eat all of his people's crops. It does not resolve the problem, and we cannot really go down a line which does not take the others with us.

The police commissioner to be (Mr Grant Stevens), Assistant Commissioner (Crime) Paul Dickson and other representatives from SAPOL have been generous with their time in providing multiple briefings to myself and my colleagues. I thank them for that, and I wish them well in their continued work across the board in ensuring our protection. I accept that they will go with a wish list to the Attorney-General's Department to have legislative reform or obtain resources in budget and the like to perpetuate their role. They have our commendation in the work that they do. I also place on the record my appreciation of the Attorney's Special Counsel, who advised us on the matter, and his chief of staff, who is ever helpful.

Members of the legal profession, the Law Society and the SA Bar Association are clearly not happy with the process or the direction of this legislation, and, in particular, the transfer of powers from the responsibility of the judiciary to the executive. They specifically take issue in respect of the abuse, they would say, of the regulatory power and have been scathing of that approach. You could say that that is predictable, but they are the keepers of protection for us and they are entitled to have a say. I do not think it is acceptable or even helpful for the government to think that they do not even exist or ignore them when it suits; it will not resolve the problem and we will not be better for trying to advance something without their assistance.

We have had no indication from the judges. They are about to have significant power stripped from them and I have not heard a squeak from them; that may be because they do not know anything about it. They might have read with a bit of interest in the paper about what has been happening in the last few days. Again, if they have not been consulted by the government, which I have every reason to believe they have not been, I think that is scandalous. I think they are an important arm of our whole democracy and they ought to be consulted. If the government have not consulted them, which I assume they have not, we will in the next short while.

I thank the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee for their continued work. We look forward to their report with interest. The only other entity which has directly come to us is the Hotels Association, and Mr Ian Horne has advised us of concerns that he raised. Again, at first blush of the legislation, it appeared to be something that was acceptable, but forensic assessment identified some major defects, and I am pleased that the government is apparently listening in respect of those reforms and is proposing amendments.

I also wish to thank Dr Rebecca Ananian-Welsh from the law school at the University of Queensland. She attended here last week to provide a briefing in respect of law on serious and organised crime, apparently quite coincidentally with the government's indication that they were going to pursue this legislation. Dr Welsh has been most valuable in her advice as to the passage of, implementation and effect of the laws in Queensland, and of the determination in the Kuczborski case. She has written academic papers on the same and, for those who can even cope with reading through what is fairly dry subject matter, I do commend them to you.

I am so pleased that people like Dr Welsh are in our community, that they look at these matters carefully and that they provide us with most helpful advice. Again, I think the government would be the beneficiary of consulting with these people and getting advice as to how we do it right, rather than ending up in the High Court. We will continue to work with the government to try to find some way to advance the legislation which is productive and which we are satisfied will help.

There are several aspects, I think from my contribution, that the government can assume we will be supporting, with some amendment that has been flagged. We still have some significant concerns about how we best deal with the first 27 criminal organisations that the government wants to deal with by statute, and we certainly have concerns at the rather amateur process that is proposed for the assessment under the regulation powers by the Attorney-General, under the apparent scrutiny of the parliament, for any new organisations.

We will see whether there are parts of our parliament that can be brought into that process to try to remedy those defects and make it effective. Some will always say that it is an unacceptable risk to move away from the time-honoured principles of the separation of powers and the annunciation of the rule of law and that they will never support legislation of this kind. They say that we should not put this in the hands of amateurs, which is us; that is, we are not judicially trained people, we are not judges. We are members of parliament, we are legislators, and some of us in different capacities have more or less experience that might help in that role, but we are not judges. Apart from the question of whether it is offensive to attempt to pretend that we are, the question is: are we going to do justice to the application of law in the protection of our constituents if we bulldoze ahead and insist that this legislation passes in its present form?

I have indicated that we will not be bullied into that—and we will not—but I will make further comment in relation to some amendments during the committee stage. In short, I will say to the Attorney that, if our expanded participation offence laws under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act are to ultimately meet with support from our side, we will need to have a mechanism by which we narrow the definition of who this can be applied to as a participant and, furthermore, require that the material that is presented to the Attorney-General from the police, from which any whole or part he makes an assessment on, is also made available to the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee of the parliament and reviewed on a confidential basis. My understanding of that aspect is that the police commissioner has indicated that he would be willing to make that information available, that is, the general files and also the sensitive material which to date has been seen only by the eyes of the Attorney. With those comments, few as they are, I rest my case.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (16:27): I also rise today to support the Statute Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2015 and to highlight some of the concerns about the legislation, which I hope that the esteemed Attorney will take on board and consider as a future reference. As the member for Bragg alluded to, the principles of the Magna Carta of 1215 are as relevant now as they were then. Issues such as equality before the law and the natural rule of law are being raised, questioned and discussed. She certainly raised many valid points in relation to the balance that needs to be reached between such laws when you look at the freedom element that they take from people and how that needs to be weighed up against the security elements of the law.

She also mentioned that no evidence has been presented to us by the government that we as legislators are at any threat in debating such legislation. It is not the first time that we have been asked to support legislation at the eleventh hour—and, by the way, we have complied to some extent today—but we will not be bullied into submission no matter what chokehold this government applies to us; we will not tap out. We will make sure that there is rigorous debate, because this is an important issue. It is such an important issue, and we need to get right because it affects people's freedoms. For a long time now, the government has tried to get this right, sometimes with success, sometimes without.

Let us look at a little bit of the history. In February 2008 the Rann government drafted the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act (the SOCCA). In May 2008 that legislation was passed. In May 2009 the Finks were the first club to be declared an illegal organisation, but then there was an appeal to the Supreme Court, which you might remember, Deputy Speaker. What happened in September 2009? The Supreme Court rejected the laws and the government appealed to the High Court. In November 2010 the High Court threw out the challenge.

In June 2012 there were amendments passed. In March 2013 police prepared applications to have the Finks, Hells Angels and the Rebels declared criminal organisations, but wait, there is more. In July 2013 there were further amendments to the SOCCA to finetune elements of the law and in October 2013 there were plans to declare the Finks a criminal organisation which were thwarted when the club changed its name to the Mongols.

We come to March 2015 when the Attorney announced his and his government's intention to introduce laws that allow parliament, rather than the courts, to declare bikie gangs criminal organisations, following the lead of what is happening interstate.

Obviously, organised serious crime is a huge issue. It is a massive issue in our society and it affects every level of our society, our community, our economy, our government, and the day-to-day running of our life. Every day we, as South Australians and as Australians, can literally feel the effects of serious and organised crime in many ways, such as email investment scams that come up on our feed, online attacks, drug manufacturing laboratories in many suburban areas and many acts of violence between criminal groups in our communities and on our streets. No community, unfortunately, is safe.

Serious and organised crime is not just restricted to that. It also has a much greater impact on other things, such as the South Australian economy. A massive amount of public expenditure is needed to treat issues associated with illicit drugs, extortion and other crimes. The groups that are involved in these crimes can do all kinds of things. They can manipulate share prices. They can manipulate assets for criminal gain. They can infiltrate legitimate businesses. They can launder money. I note that the Australian Crime Commission estimates that serious and organised crime costs Australia alone about $15 billion each year; however, I am sure the actual figure is much greater.

In South Australia, the Crime Gangs Task Force arrested and reported 162 outlaw motorcycle group members and associates. The number that was quoted today was much more than that, so obviously this is a growing element. They are involved in an array of offences: affray, drug trafficking, extortion, blackmail, serious assault and firearms charges, just to name a few. The crack squad in 2013-14 raided 239 premises. They seized 11 firearms and 36 other weapons including tasers, crossbows, knuckledusters and ballistic vests, so obviously this is a massive issue. It is a very important issue.

I have to question the timing of this government in bringing this bill to the floor. We have seen examples during the year where they found it much more prevalent to introduce issues like time zones. This government believes that time zones have a much higher ranking of importance than dealing with the real issues in our world, such as serious and organised crime and making sure that we take crime off our streets. In budget week, one has to question whether they have used this as a mechanism to blur lines with other important issues which are happening to try and get some media attention on this issue rather than the state of the economy. I am glad that the government have finally brought this to the floor of the house, but this should have been done a long time ago. What have they done for the first year, with all respect?

Mr Goldsworthy: Not much.

Mr TARZIA: Not much, as the member for Kavel correctly asserts; not much, unfortunately. Anyway, here we are. Since 2008, the government has progressed bikie gang criminal organisation laws, and I have spoken a little about its initial attempts. We received some minor amendments at the eleventh hour—I actually received mine at 12.17 today. These types of laws need finetuning from time to time, and that is a classic example of why we cannot rush these things, because I only got the amendments at 12.17 today. Luckily, I support the amendments and what the Attorney is doing in those two regards.

The member for Bragg made mention of some matters in relation to the current law. Obviously, we want to avoid any humiliation in these laws being tested by higher courts and having them thrown out because that would ultimately be embarrassing. Not only would it be embarrassing but it would mean that we are not achieving what we set out to do.

Currently, in regard to consorting, a person must not without reasonable excuse habitually consort with a prescribed person or persons, and the police can issue consorting prohibition notices against the person who is subject to a control order or who has been convicted or suspected in respect of certain offences, and obviously there are associated gaol terms. In regard to declared organisations and control orders, after High Court judgements and amendments in the parliament the law already provides for a court to declare an outlaw motorcycle gang to be a criminal organisation. I note there are several penalties for that already. In regard to licensed premises, there are also current laws which restrict persons entering or remaining in licensed premises.

The government claims that the bill represents another step forward in the fight against organised crime and that there can be no doubt that the legislation found valid by the High Court has the bikies in Queensland and New South Wales running scared. The government is determined to give the police the weapons they need to get the same result here. I honestly hope for the people of South Australia that the government's track record on this issue is a thing of the past. If you look at the government's track record on this issue, the legislation would not bust a grape in a food fight, quite honestly, but I am hoping that this legislation will do the job.

The bill amends the law as follows: in regard to the Summary Offences Act 1953, it substitutes a new section on consorting. I note that this appears to be in line with the New South Wales version, which is a tried and tested version. It also creates a new offence for a person who habitually consorts with convicted offenders after receiving an official warning by police not to do so, with a penalty of two years in prison. It also removes the need to have a SOCCA control order in place, and it goes on to list the types of consorting to be disregarded in 'reasonable circumstances'.

The member for Bragg also alluded to the elements of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which are perhaps the most controversial of the lot. I am not going to repeat her arguments, only to say that when there is no judicial review of that and the public is passed into the hands of the few, this presents issues and I think it is important that a judicial review be at least looked at as well. It creates a number of offences which are all indictable, for example, to be a participant or knowingly be present in a public place with two or more others in a criminal organisation. It talks about entering and attempting to enter a prescribed place or attend a prescribed event of a criminal organisation. It talks about recruiting and, also, attempting to recruit another person to become a participant, and many of these laws actually have penalties of up to three years imprisonment.

I support the intent of what the bill is trying to do, however. The deputy leader, the member for Bragg, has also raised a number of queries and concerns that exist in relation to the doctrine of the separation of powers. Again, I will not repeat all those in the limited time I have, but I really do ask the Attorney to consider this and to consider amendments that may be made when we flesh this out in committee.

We have also seen scapegoats, if you like, caught in the crossfire of this legislation. We have seen an innocent racing club at Mallala, and I am sure the member for Hammond will talk a little about that. You have an innocent group of people who have been caught in the crossfire here, already caught up in the initial list of 27 clubs to be declared a criminal organisation. That is why we need to take our time with these sorts of things and get them right, because it is shameful that people's freedoms and liberties are trodden on where there is not just cause to do so. This is very serious stuff.

It is a slippery slope if you want to pursue this sort of thing and take freedom away from people unless there are severe grounds to do so. I notice that the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee of the parliament has been bypassed completely in this process, and enough has been said on that as well.

In regard to the Liquor Licensing Act, obviously, it widens the act and it allows the Attorney-General to declare clothes, jewellery and accessories worn by any person to be a prohibited item. It further goes on to create an offence to enter and remain in a licensed premise while wearing a prohibited item. It creates an offence for a licensee or responsible person to knowingly allow a person with one of those items to enter and remain in a licensed premise. It also claims to provide extra safety for patrons and for workers.

Questions need to be asked whether this sort of legislation is right. I am hoping—and thank God for the upper house—that the upper house will apply the rigorous debate that is needed in these sorts of laws. Whilst we on this side of the chamber broadly accept the intent, we will not be holding up this bill on this side of the house. There are significant concerns that some members may have in relation to legislation which takes away people's civil liberties and freedoms. In any of these sorts of bills we need to weigh up the security of our citizens against the freedom of them as well. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:43): I rise to speak to the Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2015. In the first instance, I would sincerely like to thank the briefing from police officers earlier today. It was great that frank questions could be asked and frank answers were given in regard to this bill.

We look at the legislative history of what the government has been trying to achieve here. We go back to 2008 and beyond that and Mike Rann, the former premier, was going to bulldoze bikie establishments. Well, that has not happened. However, from what I can see from this legislation, which is similar to the Queensland legislation and also similar to the New South Wales legislation, essentially what will happen if this bill becomes an act is that the bikie fortresses will be bulldozed from the inside out because it will become a criminal offence to meet there and to discuss illegal activities. In fact, it was noted at the briefing that Queensland formerly had 37 clubrooms and 18 of them are now vacant. So, that is certainly a good thing.

In light of what we are trying to achieve here we do not want any undue circumstances to come up. I asked many questions in the briefing on whether an innocent person could be talking to bikies with no idea that they are bikies. They might be in a pub, dressed in a suit, you could meet up with them innocently and have a conversation. What I am told is that if it got to the point of any action being taken you would receive a warning, even if you were an innocent bystander, so that is a good thing. Otherwise, we could end up with a lot of people in trouble, not knowing that they were talking to declared persons.

Mr Goldsworthy: You can't even talk to them.

Mr PEDERICK: You cannot be associated with them, two or more. So, that could be an issue in rolling out this legislation, if it does become an act, and I think we have to be careful with that. I have some people in my electorate who ride with some of the other groups, like Ulysses and especially the Longriders, who have a habit of riding with outlaw motorcycle gangs. I stress that they are not an outlaw motorcycle gang, they are there to try to turn some of those people in outlaw motorcycle gangs to the right way, so I commend them for that. They have stressed to me that they do not want to be caught up unwittingly in this if they are going for a ride. Essentially, what will happen here is that if they are a criminal motorcycle gang they will not be able to go for their runs anymore. I must say that I have witnessed plenty of motorcycle runs.

Mr Goldsworthy: Past the farm.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, past the farm at Coomandook on the Dukes Highway. There have been plenty of runs. The bikies like heading down to an area in MacKillop. They like going down to Beachport and Robe, which they do. A few months ago, the Rebels were coming back through Tailem Bend, they were refuelling at the BP (commonly known as Jagers roadhouse) and I walked over to one and said, 'What are you doing, heading south or north?' I think he told me he was heading north and that was fine, but I wonder if a conversation like that might get a person into trouble.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, you never know, but essentially, that will not happen because if they have been declared outlaw they will not be able to have these rides. I know a former owner of the Willalooka Store and Tavern quite well and I commend him for what he did. He knew some bikies were coming through on one of these runs and, he had a lot of fortitude, he stood out the front of his shop and tavern and said, 'You're not coming in.' He got his way and, thankfully, the bikies respected him. If anyone knows anything about heading down to the South-East through the grand seat of MacKillop, Willalooka is out there on its own between Keith and Naracoorte and is a prime place to stop.

In more recent years, what has been happening—and I can understand why the police have done this; some people condemn it—is the police have been heavily involved in going with these runs, so they are actually a part of the runs. They will have vehicles in front, vehicles behind and probably vehicles embedded in the hundreds of motorbikes. Our farmhouse is about three-quarters of a kilometre off the road and you can hear this rumble. It is a lot louder than trucks coming through. When you have hundreds of bikies going past you know exactly what it is: it is one of those runs.

With this legislation it looks like—unless it is groups like Longriders or Ulysses and they get a few hundred on board—we will not hear that noise again. In light of what we need moving ahead, that will be a good thing. It is certainly an interesting point that we get to the stage where, essentially, crime is that bad that we have to take the principle of freedom away from people because we are dealing with people who do not respect the law and this is probably the only way to deal with it. I understand everything that the deputy leader has said about protecting people's rights, but there is a fine line between where we go here.

We know that when the bikies are under pressure, they always seem to find plenty of money for their criminal defence, and I know that some of the criminal defence lawyers have probably done extremely well out of defending motorcycle gangs. What I should say is that everyone can have their day in court but, as we have seen, the recent laws have stood up to challenge in New South Wales and Queensland and it looks like we are following that path.

It is interesting that the state Labor government has not brought this in earlier in this term. They run it in budget week, trying to distract people and they want to rush it through, they want to tear it through the house in a hurry, and that is just not the done thing, especially with legislation that has such far-reaching effects as this. In fact, it does not only apply to motorcycle gangs, it could be criminal gangs that have nothing to do with riding motorbikes, so in effect that is a good thing if this bill becomes an act.

It has been remiss of me in talking about the Longriders and the Ulysses that the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club is not a target here nor is the local club known as the Phoenix Motorcycle Club of South Australia, north of Adelaide, which somehow unwittingly got tied up with a similar group in New South Wales named the Phoenix when the 27 motorcycle gangs were identified around the country. It just shows that you really have to be careful how you dot the i's and cross the t's, and we have noticed that today. I suppose we are all only human but recent amendments have had to come in to make sure the addresses of places identified in the bill have had to be reidentified to make sure that they stand up to legal rigour.

It is interesting to note that the legislation will follow the individual, if they just think they can sneak out of one gang and go to another. We have heard in the debate today of how the Finks, who were about to have the long arm of the law of the present legislation laid down on them, got out of it by amalgamating with the Mongols. My understanding is that there are 10 gangs in South Australia, although I think that has changed to nine. Is that correct, deputy leader?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, it has changed to nine with that amalgamation of the Mongols and the Finks. There are about 308 individuals in these gangs. I received information at the briefing that simply changing the name of the motorcycle gang will not change the effect of this legislation. As I indicated, people who are caught innocently when they may just be talking to people, wearing no colours, because I think colours are going to become a thing of the past if this legislation gets through, will be able to receive a warning before they are convicted of any crime under these laws.

I have already mentioned about the addresses. These are essentially bikie clubhouses or people closely associated with bikies for the prescription of those and for the need to make sure that those addresses are exactly right. With these prescribed addresses, it will mean that the members of these outlaw motorcycle gangs will not be able to go there to meet.

What is trying to be achieved here is a good thing but, as I said earlier, we have to make sure that this legislation is right. The government talked about being strong on crime seven years ago, yet not one bikie fortress has disappeared. It is interesting to note that similar legislation was challenged; the Queensland laws were challenged in the High Court.

However, there are some concerns with regard to the fact that the executive, the Attorney-General and the parliament take over the role as judges, bridging the doctrine of the separation of powers. That is exactly how we run all our legislation at this time and we are proud to acknowledge the separation of powers, but that is being taken away here. Another concern is that it relies fully upon information from the police, and we have to make sure that that information is correct. I know that the police do a sterling job but, from history, we know that sometimes things do not go right, and the Attorney-General is expected to make an assessment on that advice.

As I said, the concern is that the definition of participant is extremely wide. It could include someone who is just having a coffee with two people who are wearing bikie colours, and it would be real strife if you got more than a warning for that. From what I am told, the process of assessing the initial 27 clubs to be declared, and the future clubs, is secret and without judicial review, and that oversight regarding the local Phoenix Motorcycle Club, to the north of Adelaide, was a bit embarrassing. There is also no provision, with the police information, to enable the parliament to assess whether it should disallow a future regulation.

With regard to the Liquor Licensing Act, there are changes that widen the operation of the act. The Attorney-General can also declare clothes, jewellery and accessories worn by any person to be a prohibited item—so that will get the knuckle-dusters and other things. However, there are also some concerns with the widening of the liquor licensing laws, whether it applies to ancillary areas such as drive-in bottle shops and accommodation, and we hope that people do not get penalised for inadvertent breaches, especially licensees. From what I have been advised, SA Police has provided a letter to the Australian Hotels Association confirming they need only take reasonable steps and not knowingly permit access.

The public is on side with this. The public wants protection. There is a lot of criminal activity that goes on in this state and whatever we can do to stamp on that activity is a good thing, but we need to be careful that we are not just driving it further underground. It is something that is so obvious when you see bikies in their colours, and riding down the road they are so easy to pick out, and we do not want to end up with a more sinister problem.

From what I understand is happening in the Eastern States it seems to be making a difference, and we must do anything we can do to clamp down more on the scourge of drug manufacturing especially, methamphetamine or ice production. We had an information night on ice in Murray Bridge recently, and it was very informative for all the people who were involved, including the many police who were there, who described what they were doing locally. This scourge is not just through the suburbs, I can assure members; it is right across the state and the country, and I acknowledge the work that Tony Abbott and our federal colleagues are doing in relation to this matter.

With those few words I acknowledge the bill. I believe it needs some tidying up to make sure we get on the right track, but I also acknowledge that it is what the public wants, it is what the public desires. Let us just hope that this time, after all these years, the public actually gets its desire and get some real outcomes from this legislation instead of what has essentially been seven years of not much change since the 2008 bill was enacted. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:00): This is one of the more important matters that have come before this house in my time here, and it follows on from a number of claims by the current government that it could clean up the scourge of bikie gangs and their criminal activities. We have seen, over quite a number of years, failure after failure. That raises a question in my mind as to why we keep being told by the government (generally the attorney-general of the time) that this is necessary, this is what the police want, and once the parliament passes these measures the police will be able to fix the problem. We then see the failure and we get another step and another tranche of legislation.

When I picked up and read through the bill that was tabled in this place a couple of weeks ago, I was rather concerned about what I read and what I was being asked to agree to as a member of this parliament. When I look at legislation, one of the first questions I ask myself is: what is the ill that we are trying to cure? I then go through a process and ask myself, 'Is the ill a legitimate one, is the cure an appropriate course of action, and are there better ways that we might achieve the outcome that we are looking for?'

When I ask that initial question of 'What is the ill?' there is no doubt in my mind that motorcycle gangs are involved in criminal activity. I have no doubt about that, and I think that everybody in the community understands and believes that. I think their activities, in many cases, are heinous. They use strong-arm tactics which I think should be totally unacceptable to our society, and I believe society wants the parliament to ensure that these activities are stopped and prevented from happening.

Underneath that, I think most people see that outlaw motorcycle gangs are principally involved in the drug trade. I think if we ask ourselves the serious question of 'What is the ultimate ill that we are trying to cure?' it is to deal with drugs and drug trafficking. There is a drug industry, and there are two sides to every industry: there is a demand side and a supply side. The outlaw motorcycle gangs and a lot of criminal organisations are fulfilling the needs on the supply side. I think what the government has done in this instance, and in all its previous attempts to do something about this particular scourge in our society, is fail to understand the demand side, and it has failed to even consider what might be done to really undermine the activities of these criminals by reducing the demand for their activities.

There are a lot of things that come to my mind that might impact on the demand for drugs in our society. Our education system is failing our youth. We are churning out thousands of young South Australians who are ill prepared, because of the failures of the education system, to move into society as adults. They are ill prepared to cope with the demands that society will put on them because our education system has failed them.

Our economic system is failing them because there are not jobs available for a lot of these young people. I could go on and on, but I am not going to dedicate my short time on this matter to these issues. However, there is manifest failure within our society which is encouraging young people to take succour from turning to drugs, and I think we should be addressing that. I think that is the first thing we should be doing. This bill does nothing to address that issue, and no attempt by this government in the history of this debate has ever even acknowledged the demand side of the problem we are faced with. They have not even acknowledged it. They keep wanting to use a great big hammer to control the supply side and we have seen failure after failure. That is the first problem I have with the approach that the government has brought before the house.

The second problem I have with the government's approach is that I really think that this has more to do with politics than it has to do with the actual problem. We find ourselves debating this today and tomorrow in budget week, when the government really has its back against the wall because of its history of financial mismanagement in this state. We know the budget is like a train wreck. We know the budget is going to be in a mess and, but for the ill-advised decision of cabinet to sell the Motor Accident Commission and to grab the cash reserves that have built up in that organisation to try to underpin its budget, the budget would look even more of a mess than it is going to be.

We know the unemployment figures in South Australia that came out last week are a disaster and are a result of government mismanagement of the state over an extended period. So what does the government do? It brings this matter to the house because it knows that there is a considerable level of community concern about outlaw motorcycle gangs and their activities. It thinks it can use this measure to distract the attention of the public of South Australia during budget week.

What convinces me even more that that is the purpose of this bill being in the house at this particular time is comments made by the Premier last week, I think, when he said, 'If anybody tries to hold this up or slow it down, one of the impacts of that could be a security risk to members of parliament.' The Premier publicly laid down a threat to the members of this house to accede to his government's request to move this through quickly. That was an outrageous thing for the Premier to do and, to be quite frank, my words to the Premier are: 'Premier, you only made it more difficult for yourself.' Speaking for myself, as soon as the Premier made those comments I thought, 'Hello! What is going on here? I need to read this bill even more carefully,' which I indeed did do, and it raised some concerns with me. I put that on the record. I think the Premier exposed his and his team's strategy in those ill-founded comments.

I was at a briefing yesterday morning with senior police officers and the commissioner designate and we specifically asked the question, 'Is there a threat? Is there any perception of a threat?' and we were reassured that there was not. It put the lie to the comments that the Premier made publicly the week before.

I now turn to the bill itself. When I see any legislation that is brought to the parliament which turns on its head hundreds of years of legal development, I think we should look at it very critically. When I bring schoolchildren through this place on visits, one of the things I try to impress upon them is that the making of laws is a continuum and it has been going on for a long, long time.

As has been said by other speakers—and I know the deputy leader mentioned it—the Magna Carta was written 800 years ago yesterday. It was probably the first official written document that started to talk about individual freedoms. It has taken a long time, hundreds of years, for us to establish a system of law which protects the individual freedoms and rights of the ordinary citizen, and this piece of legislation seeks to undo all of that work in one fell swoop. For that reason, and that reason alone, I cannot support what the government has brought before us.

I cannot support a piece of legislation that says an organisation is a criminal organisation because we have said it is a criminal organisation. There is no proof, no evidence; we have said it is a criminal organisation. I will explain to the house what the legislation says. New section 83GA(1) provides that a criminal organisation means, amongst other things:

(c) an entity declared by regulation to be a criminal organisation.

Declared by regulation; so you read on through the bill. How do you get to declare such an organisation? Section 83GA(2) provides:

The Governor may only make a regulation declaring an entity to be a criminal organisation for the purposes of paragraph (c) the definition ofcriminal organisationin subsection (1) on the recommendation of the Minister.

The minister is the one who makes the decision, and then the Governor signs off and makes the regulation. Subsection (3) provides that the minister may—not shall, may—have regard to (that is pretty soft):

(a) any information suggesting a link exists between the entity and serious criminal activity.

The minister may have regard to any information suggesting; that is all we are being asked, to give this power to the minister—and not just this minister but any minister in the future of this state. I am a bit happier with paragraph (b) that he may have regard to 'any convictions recorded in relation to', etc. Paragraph (c) states, 'any information suggesting current or former participants' etc.—any information. The worst bit is paragraph (e) 'any other matter the Minister considers relevant.' Any other matter the minister considers relevant he may have regard to.

Having then gone through all of that, the minister has the Governor sign off, and we have a regulation, and an organisation is declared a criminal organisation, and there is a whole range of offences that befall anybody who is an associate or a member or consorts with other members of the organisation. I do not have a problem with these subsequent provisions. The problem I have is defining the criminal organisation seemingly without any evidence, seemingly without any recourse to appeal. However, if somebody is charged with one of these further offences—and this goes on in sections 83GB, GC, GD, etc.—it provides:

It is defence to a charge of an offence against subsection (1) for the defendant to prove that the criminal organisation of which it is alleged that the defendant is a participant is not an organisation that has, as one of its purposes, the purpose of engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, criminal activity.

That is backwards. Under the system of law that we have established over hundreds and hundreds of years, starting at least in 1215, the onus of proof should be on the prosecutor, not defendant. Under our law you are considered innocent until proven guilty. Under this law that the Attorney-General has proposed to the house you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. I cannot support that. It goes against the very tenet which underpins our whole legal system.

To my mind, the Attorney-General has not made the case to the house that our legal system is failing because the fundamentals of it are flawed. He has not made that case. He has not even attempted to make that case. Our legal system and the basis of it which, as I have said, has been the continuum for many generations may not be perfect but, as I think Churchill said in a different context, it is the best that we have. I am not prepared to turn all of that on its head because the government cannot get its act together and design a decent law, cannot get its police force to be resourced as it probably should be to attack this menace and cannot do anything to try to diminish the demand for the services that are provided by these criminal organisations.

There are a number of problems the government has in bringing this to the house. It overturns a longstanding principle on which our whole legal system has been built. The fundamental problem is it fails to address the demand for a series of services. I have not seen one effort of this government since 2002 to do anything to undermine those demands, and even though I respect the police force of South Australia and think they do a fantastic job, they are not infallible.

Just to point out how they get it wrong quite regularly, we find tabled today a list of amendments to the bill that was presented here a fortnight ago principally to delete or change some addresses because the police intelligence was wrong. I will not go into it all now, but I could cite a considerable number of cases where South Australians have been dragged through the courts to great personal cost, only to be exonerated from the charges laid against them because the police investigations were not thorough enough or people somewhere in the line of the investigation or the subsequent prosecution got it wrong. They made an assumption that these people were guilty when they were not guilty.

That is why the rule of law and the principles that underpin it should be protected by this house. That is why we should be very careful before we go down this slippery slope of tossing out any of those fundamental principles by saying that those hundreds of years of considered thought in developing our legal system and our criminal law were all wrong, that the basis of it was flawed, that we should now change it dramatically and that we should undermine 800 years of development where we have ensured that the individual has some rights.

This proposal removes those rights and gives to the minister incredible power to basically declare somebody a criminal. That is basically what this bill will do; it will give the minister of the day the power to declare somebody a criminal.

I am not arguing that the majority of people who would be so declared are not criminals; I am not confident that all of them will be, and there are other and better ways of doing this. If the declaration of a criminal organisation were subject to some tests, it might be a completely different piece of legislation. I conclude my remarks there.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:20): I rise to put my thoughts forward on behalf of the people of Stuart and the opposition. As the member for Bragg, our deputy leader, said in her contribution, we are not opposing this legislation in this house but we do seek to improve it significantly.

Like all of my colleagues, I certainly support the police and the government in their efforts to fight crime—even more so when it comes to organised crime, because by definition, organised crime will be far more effective than disorganised crime or criminals operating on their own. There is no doubt that motorcycle clubs, or bikie gangs, however people refer to them, are involved in organised crime. That is not to say every single member, or even necessarily every single club is involved, but what I am quite confident in saying is that there is a very wide range of participation both at the individual and at the club level.

We want to help the government and the police fight crime, and we want to take as much politics out of this as possible. One of the difficulties we have had over many years is that the government has inserted a great deal of politics into this, going all the way back to Mike Rann many years ago who was an exceptionally skilled politician. He really made a great deal of hay in the sunshine with this issue. There were lots of headlines and a lot of attention-grabbing comments about bulldozing bikie fortresses and things like that, when the police have made it very clear that they never intended to bulldoze bikie fortresses. They certainly wanted to do what was necessary to make it far more difficult for criminal bikie gangs to operate.

The government will say that, if the opposition does not do everything that the government wants it to do, we are frustrating the police. Let me tell you, the government frustrates the police enormously with this issue as well and also causes them a great deal of frustration. The police just want to get on with the job and do the best they can, and guess what? Of course they want every tool at their disposal—that is quite logical and quite rational. They would like to have as much authority and as much legislation on their side to fight crime, and that is sensible from their perspective; I do not doubt that whatsoever.

One of the key things we need to look at is where are the criminals? I would say that a member of a motorcycle club who has never committed a crime, who does not benefit from anybody else's crimes, and does not turn a blind eye to them and pretend they do not happen, should be completely free to go about their business as they like. Any person who benefits from somebody else's crime, even though they may not commit it themselves, any person who turns a blind eye to somebody else's crime, even though they may not participate themselves or, of course, any person who actively participates—they are the people we have to get. The government understands that and is trying to bring in, in my opinion, a fairly blunt tool.

I am not of the personal view that we should just throw away everything the government is trying to do, but I am of the very strong personal view that it needs to be amended and needs to be improved so that it gives police the tools they need and is also fair to everybody involved.

I find it hard to believe that every asset that every motorcycle club owns, uses, operates and enjoys is the fruit of the labour in a completely honest, open and legal way of those members alone. I cannot accept that the assets that the clubs have are in absolutely no way connected with ill-gotten gains. I am not trying to sort of paint this with fluffiness in any way whatsoever. We need to get to criminals, but it is just not right to be trying to tar everybody with the same brush.

The police might consider that to be a soft approach. The police might well consider, 'Well, if we can tar them all with the same brush, then it's much easier to get at the ones that we do need and should get to,' and I understand that approach entirely. However, as the member for Bragg, the member for MacKillop immediately before me and others have said, and as others following me will no doubt say, there is a great concern on this side of the house about the government, because it has had no success attacking this problem through the courts and, in fact, has had a great deal of—I do not know what the right word is really—pain brought upon it by courts trying to impose legislation, trying to implement legislation, is now trying to take the courts out of this issue to a large degree.

Instead of what is the time-honoured tradition, as the member for MacKillop and others have said, of parliament setting laws, police enforcing them and courts making decisions about that enforcement and essentially deciding on guilt or innocence, or something in between, and setting the appropriate penalties, the government is actually trying to take a lot of that judicial responsibility for itself. Now that would be okay if we knew that this parliament and this government, or any government, Liberal or Labor, was always right. It is like the benevolent dictator argument: of course, nobody really minds that as long as the person always gets it right. But we know that is not the case, and the reason we have a separation between judicial and executive authority is because we know we do not always get it right—neither gets it right all of the time, but that is a very big issue.

I find it extremely surprising and a bit alarming that this is occurring at exactly the same time as this government is trying to give away some of its own authority with regard to the Parole Board, the government is trying to step away from having its own capacity to make decisions which override the Parole Board to make decisions. So, it would like to give that capacity away. At the same time it wants to take on capacity—take it away from the courts and have, not even the parliament, but just the government through regulation be the organisation that can determine what is a prescribed outlaw motorcycle gang.

There is not even a philosophical change here in the government saying, 'Well, we want to move everything in one direction. We want to move everything in another direction.' It is just moving in the direction it likes and totally opposite directions in different issues because it suits the government to do so because it thinks that it will look better in the public eye if it does so. Make no mistake, this is largely about politics, and the member for MacKillop put his comments on the record about trying to divert attention away from the economy and the budget and a range of other things, and I am sure that he is right.

The issue of identification of the prescribed OMCGs, outlaw motorcycle gangs, is a very important one. I took this issue exceptionally seriously when I was the shadow minister for police, and I still do. I learnt as much about it as I possibly could when I was the shadow minister for police. I know how hard the police work in this organised crime area. I have known police officers—two of them, in fact, long before I ever dreamt of becoming a member of parliament—who worked undercover in this area.

So, while I do not have any personal experience, I have some insight into the very significant risks that people like that took, and I certainly have insight over the last few years into the work that police do with regard to organised crime. I know their intelligence is extremely good, but it is not perfect, it is not 100 per cent accurate. So, for the government to be given the sole responsibility, based on the information that is available, to identify the outlaw motorcycle gangs that it wants to target, I think there is a very serious problem there.

I am in fact advised that three of the gangs, or clubs, that are on the list of 27 do not even operate in Australia. That might be because the police have given the government advice that they are on the way, or it might be because they think that one of the gangs is going to change its name shortly, or it might be because they have made a mistake. It might be because it is not actually meant to be on the list. I think that leaving all of those decisions to be made, essentially, by the Attorney-General in secret is not appropriate. I do support the Attorney-General, the police and the government having the powers they need, but it is not appropriate for them to have that sort of secretive authority when we know that mistakes will be made, not deliberately but we know that mistakes will be made.

I would also like to know: what does it take to get off the list of 27? We have been given the broad general criteria about what it takes to get onto that list, in the government's mind and in the mind of the police, but I guess it is pretty fair to ask: if a motorcycle organisation feels it has been unfairly targeted, and some do—I do not necessarily believe everything I am told, but some do make that claim—I wonder how they are going to be given the opportunity to prove that they have cleaned up their act and do not deserve to be on that list and so get off the list? I suspect that has never been considered by the government, but I would put forward that that is a very important aspect to consider if people genuinely want the streets to be cleaned up and for organised crime to be addressed and attacked and reduced and diminished. So, that is an important issue.

With regard to consorting, I understand that you do not want known criminals to have easy regular opportunities to get together. To put it very simply: if you have people that you know do bad things, you know they do them together, you know they do them far more effectively if they do them together and if they have a lot of opportunities to communicate about what they would do together, then of course it makes great sense to try to intervene in those opportunities. It is also quite reasonable for people to be very concerned about how the government would view their interactions.

I know the bill creates a new offence for a person who habitually consorts with convicted offenders after receiving official warnings by the police not to do so. That is a pretty broad definition, whether 'habitually' is three or four or ten times. The bill talks about: consorting is to be disregarded in reasonable circumstances with regard to family or lawful employment. That is something that everybody would have the right to ask in great detail: how are these decisions going to be made? A person who feels that they are hard done by is probably not likely to be too comfortable in trusting the police or the government's judgement of what are reasonable circumstances.

Another issue is with regard to a person being a participant and knowingly being present in a public place with two or more others from a criminal organisation. Again, that is a bit of a difficult and grey area. It is not hard to imagine that that could actually be used quite deliberately and inappropriately by people. It is not hard to imagine that if there are two motorcycle club members, two outlaw motorcycle gang members, in a place that another person from another club could deliberately turn up and could potentially be prepared to be a martyr and cop the pain for being one of the three people there together. That is not inconceivable at all.

It is not inconceivable that the police could arrange for a person who is a member of one of these organisations to conveniently turn up and become the third person at a place where two other of these people of interest already are. That would not be surprising at all to participate in that way. That may or may not be appropriate. It is not for me to judge how the police want to go about their work but it is a pretty fair thing for people to ask, 'How would we be treated? What is reasonable? What is not?' Two people understanding the law very deliberately only being two people together: there is a whole range of questions in that area, and that might be effective and appropriate for the police to do something like that, to apprehend two others that they really need to get when there is no other way that they have been able to get at them. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but there is a range of different ways these things could be used.

I say again, in wrapping up, that I support the police, I support the government, in wanting to fight crime. I do not oppose this legislation entirely. I am not of a mind to say this is no good, get rid of it, I cannot live with it, but I am not comfortable with it as it is. I think that there are amendments which will significantly improve it which the opposition will put forward. I think that it is very important that the government and the police consider those amendments so that the legislation can be effective with regard to fighting crime but not completely unfair to certain people and not completely contrary to the sorts of standards of law-making, law enforcement and sentencing that we have.

I will finish with regard to the government trying to push this legislation through, tabling it last sitting week and coming forward now saying it absolutely has to get through, that it is a huge rush. The last piece of legislation the government did that with related to the APY lands. The government came to the opposition and said, 'It is absolutely vital that you help us get this legislation through immediately. No time can be wasted because we need to use it immediately.' While we were not fully comfortable with it, we acquiesced to the government's requests and supported the government yet, to date, that legislation has still not been used.

Deputy Speaker, you will understand why we are not of a mind just to accept the government's pressure to rush it through as it is with no changes for two good reasons. It deserves to be changed and I think it is well worth taking the time to improve this legislation so that the police have the tools that they can use to fight organised crime so that the courts have something that is workable and useful for them to fight organised crime so that people who do not deserve to be unfairly caught up in this legislation are not unfairly caught up in this legislation.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (17:39): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a pleasure it is that you have resumed the chair in time for my contribution on this debate since it seems to me that some seven years ago you were the Attorney-General and I was the shadow attorney-general when the original serious and organised crime legislation came before this house. You may recall, Mr Speaker, that in opposition we supported that original legislation all those years ago. Indeed, I have gone to the bother of rereading our wonderful debate before coming in here this afternoon—

Mr Gardner: You can remember it word for word, I am sure.

Ms REDMOND: It was a fairly lengthy debate, as debates with the now Speaker and myself were wont to be in those days; indeed, we used to sit much later as a parliament. It may come as no surprise to you, sir, that in standing to address the house on this particular occasion, having supported it on the previous occasion, I am not prepared to support this new legislation. One of the great things about the Liberal Party is that I have the freedom to disagree with my colleagues and on this occasion I am choosing to do so.

When I got up to speak on the previous occasion—and I did not mention it at the time—it happened to be the 36^th anniversary, to the day, of my commencement of a career in the law. So from being a young teenager entering the hallowed halls of the Crown Solicitor's Office back in 1972, by 13 February 2008, when I rose as the shadow attorney-general, I had had a fair time in the law.

In the course of the debate I indicated that, notwithstanding our support for it, I did have some misgivings. The fundamental reason for my opposing the legislation at this stage is those misgivings, which I overcame at the time on the basis that I understood from the briefings we had with the police that we did need to take a different approach. However, at this stage I am not satisfied that what they have done in the intervening years justifies them coming back to say that they need even more than what they had at the time.

First, I will briefly comment on the last matter addressed by the member for Stuart; that is, the timing of this legislation. It strikes me as passing strange that suddenly, in budget week, with only two real days of government business, we are pressed to make a vast rush to get this legislation through. I do not think that is warranted, and it is all about creating a diversion because of the bad news that is going to come down on Thursday.

Mr Speaker, when I went to the previous legislation I noted that your then chief of staff had admitted that the legislation being proposed was, 'quite Draconian in its terms'. As I said, we had had briefings from the police and had basically agreed that the existing law—under which a crime had to be committed before there could be an investigation, a charge and a prosecution before the courts and a prosecution on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt—was inadequate to meet the challenge they were confronting with outlaw motorcycle activity. Indeed, on that occasion there had also been a bit of a rush to push things through because although your then chief of staff had told me that the bill would not be debated that week, we suddenly had to debate it because, as you may recall, the Paskeville shootings of the outlaw motorcycle gangs had occurred. So there was a political imperative for it to be discussed that day.

I acknowledged in my speech the pervasive problems requiring a different approach, and talked about the fact that there were two things involved: there was the need to address the issue of collective behaviour rather than individual criminal activity, and there was the need to try to prevent activity rather than simply responding to it and punishing it after it occurred. In a fairly lengthy speech (I discovered), I went through not only the racketeering organisation known as the RICO legislation in the US, but then the individual responses in New York and California and the responses in other countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK and Hong Kong, and looked at the way each of those jurisdictions had tried to address the problem.

There is no doubt that bikies, outlaw motorcycle gangs and other outlawed organisations are a significant problem. Indeed, at that stage we had been told that in 2001 there were six clubs and nine chapters in South Australia, but by 2007 there were eight clubs and 13 chapters in the state, so it was an increasing problem.

When I looked at the RICO legislation in the course of my earlier speech, I pointed out that New York had passed what was called the Organized Crime Control Act, and that was to reflect some of the human rights concerns of the federal RICO legislation. It required, amongst other things, the prosecutor, in person, to submit a personal statement to the court that he had reviewed the substance of the evidence. In other words, it was not presented to an elected official like the Attorney-General under this regime, but to the court.

I also noted that plea bargaining was a specific part of the armoury used to encourage people to give evidence. There was also a discussion about the fact that assets and criminally acquired assets were used not just for confiscation but as evidence of criminal activity. As I said, I acknowledge that there was and probably still is a problem, and that there was a need to target people acting for a common criminal purpose and a need to prevent rather than punish after the event. But, even at the time—seven years ago, back in 2008—I expressed concerns about moving away from the presumption of innocence and moving away from due process. That is, moving away from the protections currently afforded by our legal system, which of course involved the need to prove someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The new system authorised the Attorney-General (your good self, sir, at the time) to issue a declaration, and even senior police officers could issue limited orders. It also amended the anti-fortification laws to make it easier to obtain an order to premises used by any declared organisation. Interestingly, I asked, in one of the briefings given by the police in the last week or so, how many bikie fortresses had been bulldozed, because famously, the former premier Mike Rann had indicated that that was what the government was going to do. I was—

The SPEAKER: When he was leader of the opposition.

Ms REDMOND: I think, sir, that he also said it as premier.

The SPEAKER: He may have.

Ms REDMOND: Particularly when the legislation came in to allow the bulldozing of bikie fortresses, I seem to remember it with the former premier as premier. I was unsurprised to find that commissioner Grant Stevens said, when I asked him about how many bikie fortresses had been bulldozed, 'To suggest that we were going to bulldoze clubrooms was probably not what we were wanting to achieve.'

Even you, sir, as the then attorney-general, said, 'The legislation grants unprecedented powers to the police and the Attorney-General.' We had a long debate, sir, about the Attorney-General's intention that the declarations not be judicially reviewable. Your response to my questioning in that regard, sir, was mostly about the fact that if it was judicially reviewable, then the very wealthy bikies would be able to tie the thing up in the courts for a long time and the legislation would not be effective.

In summary, the previous legislation was passed with the support of the opposition, but with considerable misgiving and hesitation. We passed it acknowledging the difficulty. We passed the bill to allow these changes, which the police said would give them the necessary tools to fight the outlaw motorcycle gangs. Indeed, you yourself said, as the attorney-general at the time—and I quote from your part of the debate:

I think I predicted to Channel 7 that, given these powers, by the end of next year [2009] the Police would make quite a lot of progress against the outlaw gangs and that the gangs may well be a shadow of themselves.

Your very words, sir, and finely spoken they were. In light of that statement, and in light of the fact that the police have now had seven or eight years to make all of that happen and to make the outlaw motorcycle gangs 'a shadow of themselves', there is nothing that has been put by the police as to what they have actually done using these admittedly and agreed draconian powers that they were given back in 2008 to justify them coming back now and saying, 'Well, we need even greater powers than what we previously had.'

I have not attended all the briefings and I do not intend to go through the legislation in great detail to canvass all the issues that I tried to canvass in the 2008 debate, and indeed again in 2009 when I think there must have been some amendments. It disappoints me that a government which was given those powers so long ago—without having at any time said, 'Well, here is what we have managed to do. We have had these powers. We have managed to achieve this but we can't achieve that'—should come back into this parliament and, in a great deal of haste, it seems to me, in terms of the timing of the debate for this week, say to us, 'Now we want you to grant even further powers.'

I suspect that the public are not quite as worried about bikies as they were perhaps in the week following the Paskeville shooting or in the weeks following shootouts in Gouger Street or in North Adelaide.

The SPEAKER: Wright Street, I think.

Ms REDMOND: Wright Street, sorry. Yes, you are right, sir, it was Wright Street. I mentioned in my earlier contribution on the original debate that, in preparation for it, I had amongst other things met in a secret squirrel meeting with a former bikie who had been in prison for murder and had apparently reformed himself in spite of the prison process. Anyway, I had a meeting with him and he indicated to me that even he was concerned with the behaviour of the bikies at the time because, whereas once upon a time, if they had a dispute between the various bikie gangs, they would simply deal with it themselves. They would go out somewhere in the backblocks of this vast state and they would take their own retribution or issue their own form of justice and no-one would really be any the wiser. Even this bikie who I had the secret squirrel meeting with was concerned when these shootings began to take place in much more suburban environments and ordinary people who had nothing to do with bikies were placed at risk.

I certainly understand that the public becomes agitated, and I can understand fully why they become agitated about these issues. However, in the absence of evidence from the police as to how they have enforced the legislation that we gave them in 2008, and subsequently amended, and where specifically it has failed them, then I am unwilling to reach to give them further powers. Interestingly, when the police officers who were part of the briefing yesterday spoke, they were asked about how many prosecutions there had been, for instance, under the consorting provisions, and the answer was none. I am loathe to allow an extension of power, which was already draconian, when there is no evidence to suggest that they have even used the draconian powers that they have been given. I think we are going a step too far and, in spite of legitimate and genuine public concern, I think there are valid reasons for saying, 'No, let's not do this. Let's not go that far.'

Putting aside that earlier legislation, it strikes me as extraordinary that this bill being called on for debate this week should be the very week that King John at Runnymede signed the Magna Carta. It strikes me as somewhat ironic that The Queen will be on the television tonight talking about and celebrating that great moment, which has been recognised as fundamental to the development of western democracies. Yet, in this parliament, instead of celebrating that, we are talking about removing bits of the rule of law, removing the rights of certain individuals. I have a sense that it is entirely inappropriate for us to be doing that, in particular this week when we should be in fact commemorating the greatness of the rule of law, the separation of powers, the benefits of our legal system and all that it means. It strikes me as something that we should not even be considering, particularly this week.

One of the other things that I think speaks against the use of this particular piece of legislation is the fact that in one of the briefings it was conceded that the purpose of listing the 27 organisations as a schedule to the bill is so that we avoid the possibility of disallowance of the regulation. Normally, of course, as everyone in here is aware, I am sure, regulation is put into place by the minister, but there is the potential for the Legislative Review Committee, of which I am a member, or for any member of either house to move to disallow a regulation once it has been brought in by the minister.

According to the briefing we had on this matter, the 27 organisations have been specifically put into a schedule, and once passed, once the bill becomes an act, that schedule will become a regulation, but it has thereby sidestepped the possibility of disallowance. That overt, quite deliberate attempt to subvert the responsibility of either of the houses to take away the parliamentary power to disallow a regulation strikes me as flying in the very face of what our democracy should be about.

Indeed, the member for Stuart in his address talked about the fact that there does not seem to have been any discussion of the fact that, once an organisation is declared, there seems to be no mechanism by which one can get undeclared, and thus it is simply an unappealable decision. My recollection is that there has already been one organisation discovered which has a name similar to an interstate group but which is an entirely innocent group of people who have suddenly found themselves named as part of this schedule to the legislation comprising the 27 organisations that it is intended to declare.

I do not want to go into detail about the various provisions of the act. I supported the act when it originally came in, with misgivings. However, without any indication from the police as to their legitimate attempts to use the legislation that they have been given, having been thwarted by our courts—rather than simply saying, 'Oh well, we haven't actually tried to enforce our consorting legislation. We haven't actually tried to prosecute anyone'—I do not think that is good enough to justify a further extension into the area of the human rights that are abused by taking away people's rights.

Lastly, I just want to say that as a fundamentally small 'l' liberal, I believe in the right of people to wear what they want to wear. It strikes me as absurd to say, 'Well, you're not allowed to wear this clothing or that clothing.' It strikes me as absurd to say that people should not be able to wear any particular element of clothing. I do not think it is going to solve the problem because they will indeed simply change the nature of the patch or the colours, or whatever it might be. Thank you, sir.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Digance.

At 18:00 the house adjourned until Wednesday 17 June 2015 at 11:00.