HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SERIOUS AND ORGANISED CRIME (CONTROL) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 November 2007. Page 1818.)

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (12:36): l will not be the lead speaker on the bill, but I will speak first for 20 minutes. The opposition will support this measure. Along with all South Australians, we live in hope that this bill does not become the latest in a long line of ineffective promises and posturing by the Rann Labor government. We all know why we are here. It began years ago when the Labor Party decided there should be 10 marijuana plants liberally grown by whoever wanted to grow them all around the state. We became the manufacturing centre for the entire country for drugs, and the bikie gangs and organised crime flowed from that. We all know it! The Premier was around as he was part of that Labor movement. He was part of that great idea. The gift: organised crime like South Australia had never seen before. It is almost eight years since Mr Rann said, 'It's time!' He said on 16 November 2000:

It's time we tackled the problem. In South Australia too much crime has been associated with these bikie fortresses.

If words and flowery rhetoric could kill, there would not be a bikie standing in South Australia. It is not that simple. In 2002 during the election campaign he told South Australians, 'All South Australians are entitled to be safe and feel safe and feel secure in their homes, at school, on the streets or wherever they may be.'

Isn't it easy? Six years later what does the Premier have to say to the people of Paskeville? What does he have to say to the patrons of nightclubs who know how bikie gangs rule the roost—the network of drugs and crime running through city clubs, hotels and bars? What does he have to say to the men and women who worry themselves sick at the sight of gangs that roll down their streets?

We are full to the brim with the constant claims of how Mr Rann, the Attorney and their government will crack down on bikies. History shows they have failed. The Premier does not understand that all the Rann government laws are simply aimed at taking action after the bikies have committed their crime, rather than tackling the gangs themselves. The Premier should have listened to the man he dubbed 'Eliot Ness'. He was going to get Eliot Ness and he was going to find out who the bad guys were, and he was going to get them. He quickly worked out who the bad guys were and he set about getting them. The state's Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Pallaras, has some good ideas on the issue of organised crime. Mr Pallaras has had extensive experience in controlling unlawful gangs by making them and membership of them illegal.

I note that some steps in this bill are in the right direction. The question is: are the steps strident enough? However, the Premier dismissed the honourable intentions and suggestions of Mr Pallaras, a former top prosecutor with experience tackling Triad gangs in Hong Kong. Why? The Premier did not take kindly to the true independence of Mr Pallaras. It seems that he was a bit too much of an Eliot Ness. He would not play the Premier's media games, and he would not go along with the rhetoric and the routine. He actually said what he thought. We cannot hire senior people to do that, can we, if we are a state Labor government? Heavens, they might criticise us. They froze him out.

Fortunately for South Australia, Mr Pallaras is made of sterner stuff on the question of organised crime and his views thereon, but let us consider the suggestions made by the DPP and compare them with where this bill takes the law in South Australia. The problem with the Triad gangs in Hong Kong was the same as that which afflicts South Australia. The difficulty of policing these gangs is that it is hard enough to catch them red-handed breaking the law: it is even harder to get witnesses to come forward to testify against them.

Look at what we have just seen in Paskeville. Try threatening someone with death; try threatening their wife, or their three-year-old child; try threatening them with the risk that a bikie gang might turn up at the school of their children and slaughter them. Try that. That is the problem you have to address because that is happening in South Australia right now. Just look at the news headlines this week alone.

As Mr Pallaras told South Australians and the government last year—he has given them all lists–such potential witnesses would find themselves short of an arm and a leg if they testified against a Triad gang. It is no different today. You have had six years to do something about it, yet you have delivered nothing. The problem is worse today than it was when you came to office. In Hong Kong, rather than try to catch them in the act of a criminal offence, they focussed on attacking their status as members of a particular association. Again, I acknowledge this bill is an attempt. The question is whether it is an adequate attempt.

They defined particular associations as being unlawful and, if you were found to be a member of that association, you were, by that fact, committing an offence and could be dealt with criminally. And do you know what—it worked. The problems and solutions from Hong Kong are worth considering because it is a stern reminder of just how tough it is to prosecute in Adelaide. We know of the problems with our courts; we know of the underfunding; we know of the issues; and we know of the inadequate resourcing of our justice system by this government. On ABC Radio Mr Pallaras said:

The same issues apply in our jurisdiction, people are terrified to give evidence against bikies.

Hear it from the man who is responsible for prosecutions: witnesses are terrified and, over the past six years, your laws have done nothing. We have heard it all; we have heard the huff and puff. We have heard the Premier jumping around. We had the big demonstrations organised when he was in opposition. He has had his chance—six years to prove to the people of South Australia that he can get results. Listen to what the DPP—the prosecution service—is telling you: terrified witnesses; a legal system bound up; and bikies running rampant. Listen to the facts!

Let us think about these issues for a second. In Adelaide in 2008, all those years after the Premier promised a safer state, people are terrified to give evidence against bikies. In other words, justice cannot be and is not being done. The law and order regime under Premier Rann is unable to bring offenders to justice. Six years have been wasted. So we now have this bill—this bill which takes up the suggestions of the opposition and the DPP, in part, to tackle the real problem, that is, that outlaw gangs are tolerated and allowed. In fact, they are flourishing under a state Labor government. I repeat: if these laws before us today fail, the next step must be to look at whether the gangs themselves should be outlawed. They exist outside the law and therefore deserve no protection from it.

Concerns have been raised about the possible impacts on people who are not the intended targets of this legislation, and they are legitimate and rightful concerns. In some respects, the unintended consequences and impacts these provisions may have on those whom they do not target may go too far, but in regard to the villains themselves they may not go far enough. We will see, once these bills are enacted, whether or not the Attorney's proposal works. The innocent need protection. Six years of tidying up Labor's sloppy legislation is beginning to exhaust members on this side of the house, and there has been a mountain of sloppy legislation. I look forward to the shadow attorney's correcting the Attorney on a few sloppy aspects of the bill before us.

There are civil rights issues with this legislation, and there are civil rights issues with any subsequent legislation that may be needed. This is a debate this state needs to have, but it is difficult to see how someone, as it was suggested yesterday, might be a member of an outlaw bikie gang because they like riding bikes. I do not think there are too many of these people who are tied up in the drug and prostitution business. I do not think the guys who gunned down that former bikie at Paskeville were motor cycling enthusiasts. This may come as a complete surprise to the Attorney, but I do not think they were out for a Sunday cruise—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The Attorney-General.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Leader of the Opposition has just accused the victim of the crime of being a former bikie. I ask him to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. If the Attorney has a point to make he can make it in his reply.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wish the Attorney could contain himself. How he loves being in government—he can get up and lash whoever he likes. He does not like getting it back, but I can say that we love giving it to him.

History tells us that the outlaw motorcycle gangs have come to prominence among disenchanted Second World War veterans. Disaffected with society, they have sought refuge in organisations that have their own rule of law. When you are initiated into membership of such gangs, you agree to abide by their rule of law above and beyond that of general society. Despite what the Democrats may think, they are not conducting knitting and tapestry classes in the chapters of the Hell's Angels. They are not motorcycle mechanics out for a wonderful day at Mallala. Society has come to a point where it says that in the balance of things we would rather impinge on or challenge some civil rights of those who choose to join gangs and ignore the rule of law. This is the issue that the attorney is having trouble with. Some of these people need to be tackled, and they need to be tackled firmly.

The bill proposes an annual review by a judicial officer, and that is welcome. However, it also proposes a sunset clause on the legislation in 10 years. That may be too long. Perhaps five years might allow us to reflect sooner on its effect. We will see as the debate unfolds. My other concern with the legislation is that it relies on the minister's making a declaration about certain organisations and prohibiting people from associating with or supporting such an organisation. What it does not do is outlaw the organisation itself.

The government has made a judgment that these are not tinkering measures; that they will have an effect. Let us see. However, the broader question may need to come back to the house about whether the gangs themselves should be eradicated. The laws against Triads in Hong Kong made the organisations themselves unlawful and, therefore, they could not hold property or premises. Again, the pressure here is on the police to find these organisations and gather evidence that they should be declared.

I will take a moment to thank the men and women of our police force. They are doing a fantastic job, and they need the resources and the clear political direction to do their job. They are putting their lives on the line every day in the battle with these bikies. What they need from us is support and the authority and the resources to get rid of the influence in our society of these gangs. I am not certain that this bill will do that. However, we will give it a go.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's because you haven't read it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Again, another stupid, silly remark from a stupid, silly Attorney. I have, in fact, and I have discussed and considered it at some length. I wish he had done the same. Again, we have the same problem as we did with people not wanting to give evidence. The government needs to decide whether or not it wants the Hell's Angels, the Gypsy Jokers or the Finks to reside and operate in this state. Does it want them here or not? They are evil villains. Does the government want to keep them or not? If it does not want them, then get rid of them. I do not want them, and I do not care where they go.

Some time ago, the Attorney and the Premier were getting up here—another media stunt: 'We'll have a national approach.' In this new era of cooperation with Labor governments coast to coast, north to south, east to west, I look forward to seeing this national approach. You know what I care about? I am the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, and I represent the constituents of Waite. I care about what happens in South Australia. I do not care where they go. They can go to Antarctica. I do not care if they go to New South Wales, Victoria or Oodnawoopwoop. They can go anywhere—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —as long as it is outside of South Australia. If Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland want to have sloppy, soft laws on bikies, fine; that is up to them, but let us not have them here. Let us get them out of this state. Waiting for these organisations to give you a reason for them to be declared—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —will be a long and involved process of investigation and evidence gathering. Who will give—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: —the evidence against them?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will come to order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The opposition will support this legislation, as it seems that it is the best piece of legislation that Labor members can come up with. However, I warn them that they should have listened to their own experts long ago and considered the proposition that the most effective way to control outlaw organisations involved in drugs, violent crime and prostitution is to make them illegal. We will give these laws a go, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: What an intelligent group of people we have opposite!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat. Interjections on both sides will cease. I warn the Minister for Education and Children's Services for interjecting out of her seat.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It would be true to say that South Australians deserve better. They actually deserve a better government, but they certainly deserve better laws from the government. These laws, which were introduced this week, have taken a long time to get here. They were scheduled to be debated some weeks from now, but they were hurried forward with indecent haste to today when the opposition announced it would be calling for a debate in parliament this week.

I can just imagine the panic: 'What will we do? We will race forward this legislation.' We welcome that decision. At least we have the debate. These laws were needed some time ago. We will give them a go, but it is Labor's last chance on bikies. 'Get rid of them' is the message from South Australians. 'Get rid of the bikie gangs. You said you would.'

I remember the material issued during the election campaign: 'Mike Rann gets results'. People should go to Paskeville or the nightclubs in Adelaide where people are gunned down. They should talk to people who have knowledge of organised prostitution, drug racketeering and organised crime—all run by bikies. Mike Rann has results all right, and we are living with them every day. They should do it by March 2010 or they will face the wrath of a very angry electorate. They want results.

While the government has been out there spruiking about Nemer, this and that, these people have been spreading their wings. While the government has been pulling all the stunts on the ground, they have been proliferating. Thank you: you got it terribly wrong—now get it right and get rid of the bikie gangs. Do the things that actually matter, not the rhetoric, media stunts or carefully orchestrated events. Get out and do the work. If these bills fail, they must be replaced by tougher measures that get results.

Time expired.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (12:57): I am the lead speaker on this legislation. I am happy to be talking about it in one way, but I am somewhat annoyed that it has been called on today, simply because the Labor Party decided that, because of the Paskeville shooting on Monday, they could make a bit of media mileage out of bringing it on for debate today.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney-General correctly points out that we have had this bill for more than two months. He offered a briefing on Wednesday last week, which I attended for three hours. The briefing had to be curtailed somewhat because there was so much information that, at the end of three hours, people (not me) had to go off to other things; so the briefing was curtailed to some extent.

I thank Assistant Commissioner Tony Harrison and other senior SAPOL officers who attended the briefing in order to tell us how the bikie problem has grown in South Australia under the watch of this government. It has grown significantly—and it continues to grow. We all agree it is time for us to take some fairly dramatic steps to address it.

At that meeting I specifically asked the Attorney-General's chief of staff when the bill would be coming on for debate, and he specifically said that it would not be in this week of sitting but, rather, two weeks hence. The Attorney-General keeps talking about when it was tabled, but the reality is that this bill was not to be debated. His chief of staff told me specifically that it would not be debated this week.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: I am quite happy to debate this bill at any time but, even in the terms of the Attorney-General's own chief of staff, it is quite draconian in its terms and, therefore, needs to be carefully considered. We all know that it is based on the terrorism legislation. My view is that most people in Adelaide would accept that terrorism is far less likely to touch us than the activities of outlaw bikie gangs. The shooting in Paskerville on Monday is clear evidence of the problem that we have with bikie gangs. There is no doubt that we need to deal with it, and there is no doubt that we need to take some action to try to do some things that are a bit different from what we have done in the past.

Traditionally, under our legal system one only finds oneself in court if one commits an offence. Then it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual has committed a particular offence. That goes nowhere to addressing the problem of collective activity—which is the nature of what bikie gangs are involved with—and it does nothing to prevent problems before they arise. I will be examining a range of ways in which other countries have sought to address this issue, for example, the RICO or racketeering legislation in the United States. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT