MOTORCYCLE GANGS

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police a question about the South Australian government employing friends and family members of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We saw late last night in this place, when The Advertiser became available, on the front page a story in relation to family members or friends of outlaw motorcycle gangs having gained employment in the government. It was a briefing provided to some MPs in relation to the bill. I am pleased that we were able to pass the bill last night, notwithstanding the fact that the government did not wish to debate it this week, and also find a couple of mistakes in the legislation. In relation to this issue, acting deputy commissioner Harrison is quoted in the paper as saying:

Family members or friends of outlaw motorcycle gangs have gained employment in government agencies, and we've become aware of the details of where a person lives being given to members of the gangs.

The article continues:

'When you talk about corruption, generally speaking there are instances of this where people have abused their position of authority and provided this information.' Mr Harrison said the information was then used to threaten violence. 'One of the things which does happen invariably is that we investigate charges against a gang member and on many occasions we have seen they have been able to engage in some sort of threat of violence or intimidation of the witness in the matter', he said. 'Often in many instances people will not participate in a matter because they fear for their safety and the trial will fall over'.

My questions to the minister are:

1. How many family members and friends of outlaw motorcycle gangs have been employed by the South Australian government, and for how long have these people been employed?

2. Is the situation described in The Advertiser isolated to a couple of government departments or spread quite widely throughout government agencies?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:43): The honourable member said in the introduction to his question that he was briefed by assistant commissioner Harrison, as was every member.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I was not briefed.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If you did not take it up, that is your problem, but you were certainly offered it. Assistant commissioner Tony Harrison briefed every member of this place and the other place who wished to get a briefing on the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill, and that is where the information that is apparently in The Advertiser this morning came from. So it is a pity the leader did not use that opportunity to ask those questions then, as they are essentially operational matters, from the assistant commissioner.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The purpose of that briefing was for assistant commissioner Harrison to outline the reasons the South Australian police had requested this legislation. The government put forward the legislation because of these sorts of cases. All around the world, for as long as I can remember, organised crime and those figures involved in it have sought to infiltrate the offices of government. It happens everywhere in the world in every jurisdiction.

The honourable member would be well aware, if he had read the paper over the past few years, that a police officer was charged with something to do with supplying information to a bikie gang last year, and also somebody in the courts has been charged. Assistant commissioner Harrison knows about this because these matters have been detected through the existing anti-corruption branch and other elements, including the Serious Organised Crime Task Force, the funding to which this government has doubled, so we are putting far more resources into it. Police now have a much greater capacity than they have ever had in this state's history to detect such offences. It needs to be pointed out that being a relative of someone is not an offence. We had a big debate yesterday during the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill about the criminal—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You didn't want to have it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We did want to have it. We wanted it a month ago, but members opposite were not ready.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I am happy to spend the rest of question time if the council wants to debate that subject. The fact remains that I listed the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill as a priority way back, two or three months ago, and we had amendments dropped on us at the very last moment before we were due to debate the bill, even though I had asked members to do it earlier. Then, because these amendments had just come in, members were not ready.

I am happy to argue this all day if that is what members want. If members want to keep debating across the chamber, let us go, even though time is ticking away; it does not hurt me at all. Shortly, I will be tabling the various letters I sent out to members advising what the priorities were so that the media or any independent observer can see them.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This document will stand for itself. I am happy to do that, because that will settle this issue once and for all. The reason members opposite want to divert the debate is that they do not like the information we have given them about how, under this government, police resources in relation to serious and organised crime have been virtually doubled in the past 12 months.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Have we got a raincoat?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Have we got a raincoat?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, I am laughing at it. This is the absurdity: what members opposite are saying is that, if you are going to deal with organised crime, give the police raincoats. Honestly! What are they supposed to do; disguise themselves as they are following bikie gangs? All these diversions are because members opposite do not like the truth. They do not like it being pointed out that this government has done far more than any previous government in relation to dealing with these issues.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The reason ,about it is that assistant commissioner Harrison provided a briefing to members of parliament; he told us about what was happening. We know this because the police have observed these things while these people have been under observation. People have been charged, and people are now before the courts in relation to these issues. During the debate yesterday we discussed what would happen in relation to criminal association and how, if certain associations would not be exempt, the courts would give consideration to familial relationships.

It is not against the law for someone to get a job in the Public Service if one of their relatives is a member of an organised crime outfit, and I would have thought that was obvious to everyone. However, what we need is a system—and we will have that once this bill is assented to—where, if criminal associations are used improperly, the police will be much better placed than anywhere else in this country and probably most places in the world to deal with that because they will now have the tools at their disposal to be able to deal with those levels of criminal association. That is exactly why assistant commissioner Harrison made the points he did which, belatedly, some two or three months after he gave that briefing to MPs, have now appeared on the front page of The Advertiser.

It has always been a feature of organised crime that they will use friends, relatives and other people to seek to get information they can use to advance their criminal activities. We needed to pass the bill, which we passed yesterday, to—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Of course, we wanted it; we wanted it debated months ago. Why do you think we introduced it? We wanted to debate it months ago. We also want to debate the WorkCover bill, and we could have got through it if we had not had this sort of situation where members have spoken for hours and hours on this other bill. I would like to pass the PAD dogs bill so that we can get those PAD dogs out there sniffing out drugs. I would also like to pass the controlled substances bill. There are a number of very important bills in this place, and I wish we could pass them all.

However, one of the great flaws in the democracy of this state is that in this Legislative Council people like Ms Bressington, who is interjecting now, can talk forever, and there is nothing the government of the day can do about it. If she wants to talk for the next two years and delay a particular piece of legislation she has the capacity to do so, providing she has the numbers to get away with it. That is a fundamental flaw in the democracy of this state. It does not happen in the Senate, and it does not happen in the upper house of most parliaments in the world—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Honourable members will stop interjecting and the Hon. Ms Bressington will stop pointing and interjecting. You are wasting your question time.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will conclude on that point. In places like the Senate there are time limits, double dissolution provisions, all sorts of methods that can be utilised to ensure that legislation is debated. We do not have that in this state, and it is a fundamental flaw in our constitution. It is something I have been well aware of for many years, and I will keep harping on about it at every opportunity because, until it is addressed, that fundamental flaw will remain in our constitution where we do not have an effective double dissolution provision. We have a system where an upper house could block legislation but not itself be answerable to the people. Legislation could be delayed or blocked forever, yet the chamber that does it would not itself have to face the people; only the lower house is forced to do that.

That is not a situation that operates in most Western democracies; it is an abhorrent system and should not be tolerated. However, the existence of that weakness in our system is not widely recognised in this state. I hope it will become widely recognised, because if we do nothing else with this place we have to address the fact that it has no effective double dissolution provision.