HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-05-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SERIOUS AND ORGANISED CRIME (CONTROL) BILL

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. Clause 10, page 6, line 25 [clause 10(1)(b)]—After 'order' insert:

in this State

No. Clause 10, page 7, line 17 [clause 10(4)(a)]—After 'members' insert:

(provided that if the Attorney-General is satisfied that only some of the members associate for that purpose, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that those members constitute a significant group within the organisation, either in terms of their numbers or in terms of their capacity to influence the organisation or its members)

No. 3. Clause 14, page 8, lines 8 to 11 [clause 14(2)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a) and substitute:

(a) the defendant—

(i) has been a member of an organisation which, at the time of the application, is a declared organisation; or

(ii) engages, or has engaged, in serious criminal activity,

and regularly associates with members of a declared organisation; or

No. 4. Clause 35, page 22, lines 1 to 5 [clause 35(11)(b)(i) to (v)]—Delete subparagraphs (i) to (v) and substitute:

(i) 1 is a spouse or former spouse of the other or is, or has been, in a close personal relationship with the other; or

(ii) 1 is a parent or grandparent of the other (whether by blood or by marriage); or

(iii) 1 is a brother or sister of the other (whether by blood or by marriage); or

(iv) 1 is a guardian or carer of the other.

No. 5. Clause 35, page 22, lines 7 and 8 [clause 35(12), definition of domestic partner]—Delete the definition of domestic partner and substitute:

close personal relationship has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the Family Relationships Act 1975;

No. 6. Clause 38, page 23, line 12 [clause 38(1)]—Delete 'fifth' and substitute:

fourth

No. 7. Clause 39, page 23, line 23—Delete '10 years' and substitute:

5 years

Consideration in committee.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

Clause 10(1) of the bill sets up the matters about which the Attorney-General must be satisfied before he may make a control order. As passed by this chamber, these provide:

(a) that members of the organisation associate for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity; and

(b) that the organisation represents a risk to public safety and order.

Amendment No. 1 adds the words 'in this state' to paragraph (b); that is, 'the Attorney-General will have to be satisfied that the organisation represents a risk to public safety and order in South Australia'. With or without these words, the Attorney-General's focus will be on the risk or threat the organisation poses to this state. That was always the intention of the provision. That is the purpose of the legislation. The government sees no difficulty with amending the provision to make this clear, as the amendment does.

That the government agrees to an amendment moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck of the Democrats does not mean that the bill was 'fixed up' by the other place. It means that we are practical politicians in the Rann government, that we believe that half a loaf is better than none, that we are willing to compromise to expedite the bill. I believe this bill would have been just as good if it did not have this amendment. But, we accept the amendment in the interests of making a gesture of reconciliation to the other place and to the Hon. Sandra Kanck. Let not the Leader of the Opposition misrepresent amendment No. 1. We would be happy without it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am pleased that the government has agreed with amendment No. 1. I note that, although amendment No. 1 has been moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck, there are other amendments with which we will be dealing shortly, some of which have been moved by the government. I make the point that, as we deal with amendment No. 1, how fortunate indeed we are to have another place where sloppy legislation can be seen to, where it can be debated openly and fulsomely, and where it can be amended if necessary so that it is better law.

I make point to the Attorney that we are lucky even to be here this week debating amendment No. 1, it would seem. While he was out telling radio that he wanted to deal with the bill, his colleague the Hon. Paul Holloway was in the upper house seeking to adjourn it until June, so that he could deal with the WorkCover legislation. What a shambles of a week it has been for the government, and how fortunate we are to be dealing with amendment No. 1.

Amendment No.1, along with some of these other amendments, is an example of where the bill got it wrong. It went too far in some cases and needed to be pulled back to a commonsense point. Although, as the opposition has indicated, in other regards—and I guess time will tell—the bill may not go far enough. I guess we will see how it works once the police get their hands on it, and, hopefully, with the resources they need crack down on the bikie scourge so that the streets can be made safe.

As the minister knows, had the government had its way we would not be here today discussing amendment No. 1; we would be somewhere else, because this matter would not have even come before the parliament until June. To tell anyone anything other than that obvious fact is misleading, and he should desist from doing it on radio.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has accused me of misleading the public, and I ask him to withdraw immediately.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have not accused him of misleading the house. I have accused him of making remarks on radio that were misleading to the public. There is no call in standing orders to withdraw.

The CHAIR: Leader, there is no speech in relation to a point of order. However, I did note what you said and therefore I do not uphold the point of order.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Thank you, Madam Chair. Anyway, I have made my point. The opposition has supported this bill from the outset, including the amendments before us today. We have made the point that it has been too long in coming. We have had the rhetoric; we have had the huff and puff; we have had several attempts at trying to sort the problem out, all of which have failed, according to the shootout on the weekend. However, with this amendment, that I think makes this bill a better bill, we will see if this new device of the government has any effect.

I do flag to the Attorney that if there are any more shootouts, if there are any more significant bikie problems and if the issues do not go away, then the government's credibility, the Premier's credibility and, most of all, his credibility, is on toast, to be perfectly frank. I will leave my good friend the member for Heysen to point out, as we go through the amendments, including amendment No. 1, this tricky point that the Attorney just cannot get his brain around, that you can have one clause in a bill that might go too far and another clause in the same bill that might not go far enough.

I know that this is a very difficult concept for the Attorney, because he seems to think that if the opposition, as we go through these amendments, raises any issue to suggest that one aspect of the bill might go too far and another might not go far enough, there is some sort of a powwow going on. Can I just reassure him—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No; powwow—have you got that?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What do you mean by that?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, if you want to ask questions, Attorney, come over here and be in opposition. If I remember, you were not very good at it when you were here, but you are always welcome back.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You are there because we gave it to you on a silver platter; that is why you are there. You did not earn it, I can assure you, and don't worry, we have reflected on that at length and will not make that mistake again.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You were not a good enough government to win; you had to have it given to you. The opposition is delighted that we are here, and I am personally delighted to be supporting amendment No. 1 and the other amendments. I will leave my learned colleague the member for Heysen to carry forward.

I will say to the government that if it is really serious about law and order then it should make sure that it brings these pieces of legislation forward and genuinely deal with them expeditiously, not just adjourn them because it wants to cut the entitlements of disabled and injured workers ahead of making the streets safe. As the record shows, that is what it attempted to do earlier this week in the Legislative Council.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The leader's learned friend will shortly begin to talk about the amendments made by the other place, and unlike the leader she will talk about them sensibly because she understands them. We have just seen a leader of the opposition out of his depth with this bill. At no time have I ever said that I wanted to delay this bill until June. The Leader of the Opposition misleads the public when he claims that, because I have simply never said it or implied it. What I called for is for the other place to walk and chew gum at the same time; namely, to deal with this bill and the WorkCover bill. That is all I have ever asked for: for the other place to do a fair day's work.

Last night, instead of dealing with the WorkCover bill, the other place decided in the early evening to debate the Hon. Sandra Kanck's motion—funnily enough, it is exactly the same as the member for Mitchell's motion—on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know that The Jerusalem Post was holding its presses back earlier today for the outcome of that debate. Well, I jest.

The other place thought that it was more important to try to give its solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict than to deal with the WorkCover bill, and to a man and woman every Liberal in the other place voted to make that the order of business, because the government asked (through our leader in the other place the Hon. Paul Holloway) the Parliamentary Liberal Party to deal with the WorkCover bill before it dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But no, they decided to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict first. I would like the Parliamentary Liberal Party to explain that to the public of South Australia and in particular to explain it to small businessmen who are paying a WorkCover levy in South Australia of around 3 per cent while their competitors in Victoria will be paying 1.3 per cent of payroll. Explain that!

The Leader of the Opposition talked about our failed attempts to deal with outlaw motorcycle gangs and said that if there was another conflict on the streets we should be ashamed. So, if a crime happens some time after the proclamation of this bill, somehow this government should be ashamed. Is that the formula, may I ask the Parliamentary Liberal Party, that if crime happens, the Rann government should be ashamed and presumably resign? Is that the formula? No. I hear silence, because members opposite do not want to associate themselves with the crazed rhetoric of the dancing Leader of the Opposition.

This government has effectively removed the associates of outlaw motorcycle gangs from the doors of our nightclubs and hotels in the central business district. When we came to office after eight years of Liberal government in this state, the police advised us that 80 per cent of the companies providing crowd-controlling services to licensed venues in the central business district were associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs.

We introduced harsh legislation, that the Liberal Party tried to water down in debate, to remove associates of outlaw motorcycle gangs as doormen of nightclubs, and we did so using police intelligence and masking that police intelligence from the person who was the subject of the application. We do not apologise for doing it, and we do not regard it as a failed enterprise. On the contrary, it worked.

As a result of that, those people working on the doors of nightclubs in Adelaide should be free of drugs, free of alcohol, not be subject to charges of unlawful violence and not have a record of drug use or violence. I regard that as a success. Secondly, we decided to move to stop associates of outlaw motorcycle gangs getting control of the licences of hotels and nightclubs such as Heaven, and we succeeded.

Mrs REDMOND: I rise on a point of order. I am happy for the Attorney to talk at some length, but he has gone well and truly off the topic of the amendment No.1 which is what we are supposedly considering before the chamber at the moment.

The CHAIR: I do not uphold that point of order. It does appear to me that the Attorney is speaking about criminal activity in this state.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: This is what happens when a competent opposition spokesman who is fully seized of all the relevant facts of this bill is bumped so that her bumbling leader can talk about a bill of which he knows nothing.

Mr Hanna: He must be getting to you.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I don't think so; no more than you are. Thirdly, this is the government that did something about bikie fortresses. In 1999, after more than five years of Liberal government in this state, the Rebels Motorcycle Club bought the Gas Workers' Sports & Social Club on the corner of Chief Street and Second Street, Brompton. Then the Rebels applied to turn that club into their fortress. They applied to the Charles Sturt Council to build an edifice with nine-metre high concrete tilt-up walls in suburban Brompton, in my electorate.

The Gas Workers' Sports & Social Club was bombed, and the explosion shattered the glass in dwellings and businesses along Chief Street, Brompton, and rattled the windows as far away as my home in Wilpena Terrace, Kilkenny. Even in the aftermath of that bombing, the Liberal government of the time said that it needed to do nothing to interfere in the planning and development process.

So, as far as the Olsen and Kerin governments were concerned, the Rebels Motorcycle Club was free to build whatever it wanted at the corner of Chief Street and Second Street, Brompton. They did nothing, and they are on the record as saying that no action was necessary by the government of the time. The parliamentary Liberal Party is not very concerned about anything that happens down in Brompton in the western suburbs.

As a result of the change of government, that development was stopped. It was not actually stopped by the anti-fortification legislation that we put through parliament: it was stopped by the Rann cabinet declaring it a major development. That is what stopped it. We took it out of the hands of the Charles Sturt Council and said, 'We're stopping it.' Then the anti-fortification legislation came through, which has had the effect that we have been able to cut down the fortifications at the new Rebels headquarters on Wood Avenue, Brompton.

The government's anti-bikie legislation, little by little, bit by bit, is coming into effect, and is having an effect. I do not say that it will stop all clashes between organised criminals; I do not make that claim. I am not the general manager of the universe. I do not have the ability to stop criminals being criminals and I do not have the ability to stop criminals fighting each other over turf, but I do have the ability—which this government is utilising—to disrupt and interfere with and dismantle criminal gangs in South Australia. Bit by bit, we are making progress, and this bill is part of that progress. This bill is not—as the Leader of the Opposition claims—invalidated because at some time in the future gangs might have a go at one another.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 2:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

That the Legislative Council’s amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

Clause 10(4)(a) of the bill provides that, for the purpose of making a declaration, the Attorney-General must be satisfied that members of an organisation associate for a relevant criminal purpose, whether or not all members associate for that purpose or only some of the members associate for that purpose. Clause 10(4)(a) recognises that not all members of groups, such as criminal motorcycle gangs, have criminal records or, indeed, engage in criminal activity, serious or otherwise.

The Rann government has never said that all members or associates of outlaw gangs are criminals; not all of them are. Amendment No. 2 adds to this provision a requirement that the Attorney-General be satisfied that the members of an organisation who do associate for criminal purposes constitute a significant group within the organisation, either in terms of their numbers or in terms of their capacity to influence the organisation or its members.

The government agrees that this additional requirement is reasonable and will give further comfort to lawful and law-abiding organisations that they have nothing to fear from this legislation. I refer in particular to the Christian missionaries organised as the Longriders, even though they may count among their membership a small and insignificant number of people with criminal records who have engaged or do engage in serious criminal activity.

Mark this point very carefully: if the parliamentary Liberal Party had had its way, before a declaration of an organisation could be made, the decision would end up being made by a Supreme Court judge after the outlaw gangs employed all their highly paid lawyers. There would not have been an organisation declared until after the next state election at the earliest if that had been the case. Fortunately, in another place, that amendment was defeated by 12 votes to nine. So, the Parliamentary Liberal Party tried to cripple this bill at its birth by making declarations subject to judicial review. Where I disagree with the Parliamentary Liberal Party is that I believe declarations of these organisations ought to be made on the recommendation of the Police Commissioner by a minister responsible to a representative house of parliament. That would be me and the House of Assembly. That is the way things should be done in a parliamentary democracy. Judges ought not to be governing this state.

Mrs REDMOND: I do not intend to speak at any length on this amendment. I think it clarifies a relatively small but important point and, as the Attorney has already indicated, it makes it clear that there must be an involvement in an organisation by a sufficient number of members (or members with sufficient clout within the organisation) to be a serious part of the operations of the organisation. I think it is technical really, rather like amendments Nos 4 and 5, which are not getting to the heart of the matter. I support the Attorney and I am pleased to see that we are going to get these amendments through. I note that overall of the seven amendments made, two amendments were made by the Hon. Sandra Kanck, two by the Hon. Stephen Wade and the other amendments were made by the Attorney's own counterpart in the other place. I will speak more about those in due course. We support this amendment.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 3:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 3 be agreed to.

As passed by this place, clause 14(2)(a) of the bill provides that the Magistrates Court may on application by the commissioner make a control order against a person (the defendant) if the court is satisfied that the defendant (a) has been a member of a declared organisation or engages or has engaged in serious criminal activity and (b) regularly associates with members of a declared organisation, and that the making of the order is appropriate in the circumstances.

Amendment No. 3 deletes clause 14(2)(a) and replaces it with a new subclause that makes clear that the court may make a control order against a former member of a declared organisation, even though he ceased being a member of the organisation before it was declared. This amendment ensures that former members of a declared organisation who may have left the organisation before it was declared, but who nonetheless continue to associate with members of that or another declared organisation, can be made subject to a control order if the court considers it appropriate.

The amendment also ensures that the members of criminal organisations cannot avoid the control order provisions by ceasing their membership of the organisation before a declaration is made about it. As members would be aware, that a declaration is being sought against an organisation must be made public. Clause 9 of the bill requires the Attorney-General to publish a notice of the commissioner's application for a declaration against an organisation in the Government Gazette and a newspaper circulating throughout the state.

That we are agreeing to such an amendment does not mean that the legislation was broken or there was something wrong with it. These amendments could have been made by a following bill that would be appropriate to amend this bill but, in the interests of making the amendments as swiftly as possible and acquiescing in opposition and minor party amendments, we are agreeing to this package of amendments.

Mrs REDMOND: I beg to differ with the Attorney on that point. I think, in fact, this amendment is a salutary lesson on not only the benefit of having a Legislative Council to review our legislation but also, knowing as I do, that the legislative councillors take a great deal of care to consider the implications of each of the provisions of the bill. Indeed, I think that house does a better job than us often, and I have mentioned this in debate before in terms of actually analysing legislation. Too often in this house members on both sides get up and make generic contributions on the topic without even having read the legislation.

I have a very firm view that, when we come into this place as members, we should be given a lot more instruction than most members receive on reading a bill, an act of parliament, statutory interpretation and all those sorts of things, because I know that the Attorney is an exception, as am I, and we both enjoy getting into the detail, but very often the debates in this house do not examine the detail of the bill.

What has happened in this case is—and I think that the Attorney has glossed over it a bit—the provisions of clause 14 as they appeared in the bill that went to the upper house provided that the court must make a control order if the court is satisfied that the defendant is a member of a declared organisation. Subclause (2)—the clause that is being amended—provided that the court may make a control order if the court is satisfied that the defendant has been a member of a declared organisation. It all sounds very well until you start to think about it.

As the Attorney has already pointed out in his contribution on one of the earlier clauses, the people we are trying to target here can afford very good legal representation and it does not take Einstein or a great legal brain even, although I confess I did not pick it up on the way through this house, to see that, if a member of one of the targeted bikie gangs resigns now from that gang, then they could not come within subclause (1) because they are not a member of a declared organisation, nor could they come within subclause (2) because the organisation is not a declared organisation at the time of their membership which is now because we do not have declared organisations.

This amendment is designed to correct that loophole. As I understand the debate that occurred in the upper house, the Hons Mark Parnell and Robert Lawson highlighted the potential problem. Had they not picked up the problem, and had the government not recognised the legitimacy of the argument and included this amendment to correct it, we could have had wholesale resignations of members from these outlaw motorcycle gangs, but none of them could have been made the subject of a control order.

I welcome the amendment and the government's acknowledgment that the amendment is necessary. Certainly, it is far more useful to do it now during debate on the bill, rather than to put all this into place, find it does not work and then introduce another bill to correct what is a problem which has been highlighted by our most revered and venerable members in the upper house—because we do get a valuable service from their considering the detail of this legislation.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 4 and 5 be agreed to.

Clause 35(6) excludes from consideration for the new offence of criminal association some types of associations. These are listed in paragraphs (a) through to (f) of clause 35(6). The first category is that set out in paragraph (a)—associations between close family members. The term 'close family member' is defined in clause 35(11), as passed by this house. Clause 35(11) provided:

(b) a person is a close family member of another person if—

(i) one is a spouse or domestic partner of the other; or

(ii) one is a parent, step-parent or grandparent of the other; or

(iii) one is a child, stepchild or grandparent of the other; or

(iv) one is a guardian or carer of the other; or

(v) one is a brother, sister, stepbrother or stepsister of the other.

'Domestic partner' was defined to mean 'a person who is a domestic partner within the meaning of the Family Relationships Act, whether declared as such under that act or not'. The term 'domestic partner' is defined in section 11 of the Family Relationships Act, and requires not only that the relevant person be living at the relevant date in a close personal relationship, but that they have done so for at least three years or three out of the preceding four years or that there is a child of the relationship. The government concedes that this is too narrow and would, in the absence of a declaration under section 11(b) of the act, rule out genuine relationships that have existed for less than three years or three out of four years, where there is no child of the relationship.

Amendment No. 4, therefore, replaces 'domestic partner' in the definition of 'close family member' with 'a person who is in a close personal relationship with the other person'. The term 'close personal relationship' is also defined in section 11 of the Family Relationships Act, and means 'the relationship between two adult persons (whether or not related by family and irrespective of their gender) who live together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis', not including marriage or relationships where one party provides domestic support or care for fee or reward. A relationship that is the subject of a declaration under section 11(b) of the Family Relationships Act would also be covered.

This amendment also adds to the list associations between former spouses and people who were, but no longer are, in a close personal relationship; so that covers the ex-partner. This recognises the need for former spouses and partners to maintain contact with one another for custody and property matters, and the like. It extends each of the relevant categories to cover relationships by blood and marriage. It recognises that such relationships are not independently created but, rather, are a function of marriage; so I gather that is covering the in-laws. Thirdly, it deletes subparagraph (iii), which refers to a person being a child, stepchild or grandchild of the other. These relationships are covered by subparagraph (ii) in that, if a person is a parent or grandparent of the other, then that other child is a child or grandchild of the first person. I have said it before—and I will say it again: these changes could have been made by a subsequent bill. They are not a clinching argument for the expense of having a second chamber.

Amendment No. 5 is consequential upon amendment No. 4 and inserts a definition of 'close personal relationship' into clause 35(12) of the bill.

Mrs REDMOND: I agree with the Attorney-General that the definitions are not vital. I think the previous amendment was vital to the operation of the act. This amendment makes for a tidier definition; it is neater. Using 'by blood or marriage', in terms of relationships, rather than the terms 'step-parent' and 'stepchild' is a neater way of referring to things. Obviously, we support the amendments.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 6 and 7:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 6 and 7 be agreed to.

The amendment to clause 38 of the bill reduces from five years from commencement to four years from commencement the date by which the Attorney-General must conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the act. It is consequential upon amendment No. 7 that reduces the sunset period in clause 39 of the bill from 10 years to five years. It seems that, for some reason, the parliamentary Liberal Party wants me still to be the Attorney-General when these things occur. I do not know why they want that. I would have thought they would push them out until such time as the member for Heysen had a chance of being attorney-general, but that is a matter for the parliamentary Liberal Party.

For the sake of amity, we have accepted these amendments. Although the government is confident that this legislation will disrupt the activities of criminal organisations, the government does not believe that, after five years, this parliament will be in a position to make a definitive judgment on the effectiveness of the legislation and whether its operation should be continued.

During the committee stage, I advised members that the risk in reducing the sunset clause to five years is that any gains made against organised crime will be lost if the legislation is repealed at that time. The 10 year sunset period is one of three measures aimed at ensuring the powers in this legislation are used properly and that, when so used, are effective. The three review mechanisms are designed to work together: an annual review of the use of the powers under the legislation each year; a review of the operation and effectiveness of the legislation after five years, each with parliamentary oversight; and the expiry of the legislation after 10 years. The government believes that this is appropriate and, for that reason, we opposed these amendments in another place.

However, to ensure that the Serious and Organised (Crime) Control Bill can be brought into operation as soon as possible, the government has decided to support the amendments. I will say once more that this has nothing to do with the desirability of having another chamber, a third chamber, or a fourth chamber. It has nothing to do with the legislation being broken. The fact is the opposition and the minor parties have us by the short and curlies and our hearts and minds have followed.

Mrs REDMOND: Obviously we support these amendments: they were moved by us in the other place. I agree with the Attorney; that is, with the exception of amendment No. 3 moved by the government in the other place, the amendments are simply improvements to the bill, but, in my view, amendment No. 3 would have been crucial to the operation of the bill. We did consider hard and long whether to seek to amend this sunset clause. Obviously amendment No. 6, the review provision, simply follows on from the fact that, if we move the sunset clause back to five years instead of 10 years, then you cannot have your review at five years. Amendment No. 6 corrects that to four years and, indeed, that is why it appears at four years.

We consider that the government and SAPOL have to be given sufficient time to bring this legislation into operation and to see whether it is working before they make a report to the parliament about its success or otherwise—and I hope that it will be success. However, the Attorney agrees—certainly his chief of staff stated to us that this is draconian legislation. It does change a lot of the bases upon which we have until now pursued most things in the criminal law. We do that with some hesitation, because it is no light matter to decide to change the burden of proof and to decide to empower police to make orders that will infringe potentially on the liberty of individuals. We are trying to ensure that this is only done against those individuals whom we really have intelligence that leads us to believe are a danger to the community because of their actions.

We finally formed the view that not to support this legislation would leave the police in this state trying to fight the battle against organised crime, and particularly outlaw motorcycle gangs, effectively with one arm tied behind the back. We do support the legislation. But that said, we considered that 10 years was a long time to wait if, potentially, we are taking away the civil liberties of the citizens of this state—and even criminals have some rights. We came to the conclusion that it was appropriate to reduce that sunset clause to five years. I am confident that, if in five years' time this legislation is proving to be an effective weapon against outlaw motorcycle gangs, then it will not be difficult to continue the legislation in its operation. However, when you are dealing with something as precious to all of us as our freedom, then I think that we need to take it very carefully.

We support the amendment to reduce the sunset clause from 10 years to five years, and consequently the review from five years to four years.

Mr HANNA: I want to speak in relation to the sunset clause. I do think five years is much more reasonable than the 10 years originally proposed by the Rann government. I would have been happy with a two year sunset clause. The Attorney-General's speech to us in relation to this clause is belied by the rhetoric offered by his colleagues. It is said that the bikie gangs will be squashed by the implementation of this legislation—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I never said that. I said no such thing.

Mr HANNA: The Attorney-General seems to have a contrary view. One of them has got it wrong. It seems to me that, if this is properly implemented, then its aim should be achieved well and truly long before five years is up. I can certainly live with the five years. It is a bit better than the 10 years that we had before.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I agree with the member for Mitchell to this extent. These are draconian provisions. They are departures from our conventional criminal procedure. But for the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs, they would not be necessary, and I look forward to the day when they can be sunseted or repealed. On the magnitude of the risk to the rule of law in this state, I disagree with the member for Mitchell. I believe he has run a scare campaign against this legislation. It is a pity he is not so frightened of the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs. You will not hear much from the member for Mitchell about outlaw motorcycle gangs.

The member for Mitchell has run scare campaigns against our criminal law legislation before. One of his first scare campaigns—in which I think he was the only person in this chamber to vote against the legislation—was against the hoon driving laws. The member for Mitchell was against our laws against hoon driving. It was going to lead, in his view, to manifest injustice. How many years has the hoon driving legislation been in and how many manifest injustices have there been? The member for Mitchell is silent on that scare campaign.

I think that the member for Heysen has been imminently reasonable in her approach to this bill. I thank her for her cooperation. I thank the Parliamentary Liberal Party for expediting it and, if it were just down to the member for Mitchell and I, how swiftly and sweetly the criminal legislation of this state would be dealt with and how modest would the rhetoric that accompanied it be.

The CHAIR: Attorney, you might reflect on that. Did you just state 'if it were just down to the member for Mitchell and I'?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen and I. I am not referring to the member for Mitchell. It is the member for Heysen who has been reasonable and cooperated in the swift dispatch of this government business. I thank her for it and—

Mr HANNA: I rise on a point of order. Is it proper for the chair to enter into the debate and suggest corrections to the Attorney-General?

The CHAIR: Yes, the chair is able to suggest that a correction be made. Attorney, have you concluded your remarks?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes.

Motion carried.

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