HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

This Bill will enact new offences, mirroring those enacted in Queensland, both those in their Criminal Code and those in their Liquor Act, declared valid by the High Court. In addition, the Bill modifies South Australia's consorting provisions as enacted in New South Wales and declared valid by the High Court, modified in accordance with the advice of the Solicitor-General.

Moreover, this Bill contains the same provisions as Queensland enacted in specifying declared criminal organisations and prescribed places (although, of course, places will differ). Extensive and detailed advice has been taken from police, both on names and places, and their proposals have been assessed by reference to the proposed statutory criteria for the making of regulations.

Consorting—South Australia

Section 13 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 ('the SO Act') contains the offence of consorting. It provides that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, habitually consort with a prescribed person or persons. A person may consort with another person for the purposes of section 13 by any means, including by letter, telephone or fax or by email or other electronic means. A maximum penalty of two years imprisonment applies.

Part 14A of the SO Act establishes a regime for consorting prohibition notices. Section 66A provides for a senior police officer to issue a consorting prohibition notice prohibiting a person (the recipient) from consorting with a specified person or persons if the officer is satisfied that:

the recipient is subject to a control order under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 'the SOCC Act'), or the specified person or each specified person:

has, within the preceding period of three years, been found guilty of one or more prescribed offences; or

is reasonably suspected of having committed one or more prescribed offences within the preceding period of three years;

the recipient has been habitually consorting with the specified person or specified persons; and

the issuing of the notice is appropriate in the circumstances.

Section 66C provides that a consorting prohibition notice must be served on the recipient personally and is not binding on the recipient until it has been so served (other than where the Magistrates Court orders substituted service).

Section 66D and the following sections contain the necessary machinery and procedural provisions. Section 66K provides that a person who contravenes or fails to comply with a consorting prohibition order is guilty of an offence. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years. However:

a person does not commit an offence in respect of an act or omission unless the person knew that the act or omission constituted a contravention of, or failure to comply with, the notice, or was reckless as to that fact;

a consorting prohibition notice:

does not prohibit associations between close family members; and

does not prohibit associations occurring between persons:

for genuine political purposes; or

while the persons are in lawful custody; or

while the persons are acting in compliance with a court order; or

while the persons are attending a rehabilitation, counselling or therapy session of a prescribed kind; and

may specify other circumstances in which the notice does not apply.

The offence of consorting and the consorting prohibition notices were introduced through the Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2012. They are important components of the Government's serious and organised crime strategy.

Consorting—New South Wales

New South Wales also recognised the importance of the use of consorting offences in the legislative armoury against organised crime and legislated at about the same time as South Australia.

Section 93X of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) contains that jurisdiction's consorting offence. Section 93X provides that any person who habitually consorts with convicted offenders, after having been given an official warning by police in relation to each of those offenders, is guilty of an offence, punishable by imprisonment, fine, or both. A person does not 'habitually consort' with convicted offenders unless the person consorts with at least two convicted offenders (whether on the same or separate occasions) and the person consorts with each convicted offender on at least two occasions.

Section 93W of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) defines 'consort' to mean consort in person or by any other means, including by electronic or other form of communication, and 'convicted offender' to mean a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence (disregarding an offence under section 93X). Section 93Y provides that specified forms of consorting are to be disregarded for the purpose of section 93X if the defendant satisfies the court that the consorting was reasonable in the circumstances. The specified forms of consorting are consorting:

with family members;

that occurs in the course of lawful employment or the lawful operation of a business;

that occurs in the course of training or education;

that occurs in the course of the provision of a health service;

that occurs in the course of the provision of legal advice; and

that occurs in lawful custody or in the course of complying with a court order.

On 8 October 2014 the High Court of Australia, by majority, dismissed a challenge to the constitutional validity of section 93X (Tajjour v State of New South Wales; Hawthorne v State of New South Wales; Forster v State of New South Wales [2014] HCA 35).

The plaintiffs alleged that section 93X was invalid because it impermissibly burdened the freedom of communication concerning government and political matters implied in the Commonwealth Constitution. Two of the plaintiffs further alleged that section 93X was invalid because it infringed a freedom of association which they said should be found to be implied in the Constitution and because the provision was inconsistent with Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('the ICCPR').

By majority, the High Court upheld the validity of section 93X. The Court accepted that the provision effectively burdened the implied freedom of communication about government and political matters. However, the majority of the Court held that section 93X was not invalid because it was reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate, to serve the legitimate end of the prevention of crime in a manner compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative government.

The High Court unanimously concluded that the provisions of the ICCPR, where not incorporated in Commonwealth legislation, imposed no constraint upon the power of a State Parliament to enact contrary legislation. Each member of the High Court who considered it necessary to answer the question about a free-standing freedom of association concluded that no such freedom is to be implied in the Constitution.

The critical point to note here is that the New South Wales consorting provisions have been subjected to a thorough and searching examination by the High Court and found to be constitutional. The South Australian provisions have yet to be the subject of litigation.

Consorting in the Bill

The New South Wales model can be improved in a non-constitutionally threatening way by making it interact seamlessly with corresponding laws (like the New South Wales laws themselves). The official warnings and the number of occasions of consorting should be recognised whether or not they take place in South Australia or in another corresponding jurisdiction (such as New South Wales).

Second, advice from the Solicitor-General is to the effect that it is worth keeping the provisions dealing with consorting prohibition notices in an amended form. The Solicitor-General suggests the removal of any requirement that there be a control order under the SOCC Act.

In addition, it is now proposed to enact the Queensland consorting-like offences in the Criminal Code declared valid by the High Court. That means enacting these offences:

1. the offence of a being a participant in a criminal organisation being knowingly present in a public place with two or more other persons who are participants in a criminal organisation (section 60A of the Criminal Code);

2. the offence of being a participant in a criminal organisation entering a prescribed place or attending a prescribed event (section 60B of the Criminal Code); and

3. the offence of being a participant in a criminal organisation recruiting anyone to become a participant in a criminal organisation (section 60C of the Criminal Code).

For the first two purposes, a criminal organisation is defined to mean:

(a) an organisation of three or more persons:

(i) who have as their purpose, or one of their purposes, engaging in, organising, planning, facilitating, supporting, or otherwise conspiring to engage in, serious criminal activity as defined under the SOCC Act; and

(ii) who, by their association, represent an unacceptable risk to the safety, welfare or order of the community; or

(b) a declared organisation under the SOCC Act; or

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

For the third purpose, the definition of criminal organisation will be limited to paragraph (c). This is because the current Part 3B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 already adequately and expressly deals with recruiting in the context of definitions (a) and (b).

The Minister will be asked to consider the criminal history of the organisation and its members before recommending that a regulation be made declaring an organisation to be a criminal organisation.

The SOCC Act- South Australian Legislative History

The Government began its legislative attack on serious and organised crime in general and outlaw motor-cycle gangs in particular with the enactment of the SOCC Act. On 11 November 2010 the High Court, by a majority of 6-1, decided that, at least in so far as the Magistrates Court was required to make a control order on a finding that the respondent was a member of an organisation declared to be a criminal organisation under the SOCC Act, that court was acting at the direction of the executive, was deprived of its essential character as a court within the meaning of Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution and that section was, therefore, invalid (South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1 ('Totani')). The net effect of that decision was that a key part of the legislative scheme in the SOCC Act was inoperable. That, in turn, meant that the legislative scheme for attacking criminal organisations and their members was rendered ineffective and the essential objectives of the SOCC Act thwarted.

In 2011-2012 the Government prepared extensive amendments to the SOCC Act in light of Totani and the subsequent decision of the High Court to invalidate the New South Wales equivalent legislation in Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181. These amendments represented, on the best advice then available to Government, an attempt to place the legislation and the accomplishment of its aims on a sound constitutional footing. The amendments were passed and came into effect as the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2012.

After the 2012 amendments the High Court heard and delivered judgment on a constitutional challenge to the equivalent Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (Qld). The Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (Qld) differed from both versions of the SOCC Act. The High Court dismissed the challenge and upheld the validity of the Queensland scheme in Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] HCA 7. The Serious and Organised Crime (Control) (Declared Organisations) Amendment Act 2013 amended the South Australian legislative scheme in accordance with the High Court decision of validity by vesting the jurisdiction to make declarations of unlawful organisations in the Supreme Court rather than, as before, 'eligible judges'.

The package of amendments introduced in 2013 was not, however, confined to amendments to the SOCC Act. The Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2013 enacted a series of assorted measures aimed at disrupting and distressing serious and organised crime, its members and aspirant members. In brief, the Bill contained these initiatives:

a new offence framed so as to criminalise participation in a criminal organisation knowing or being reckless as to both:

whether it is a criminal organisation; and

whether the participation contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity.

Participation includes recruitment, supporting the organisation, committing an offence for or at the direction of the organisation and occupying a leadership or management position in the organisation;

an increase in maximum penalties, including aggravated versions of various existing offences, the aggravation being that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, in association with a criminal organisation or the offender identifies him or herself as the member of a criminal organisation;

a presumption against bail for any person charged with a serious and organised crime offence and severe conditions if bail is granted;

a special procedure of direct indictment into the Supreme Court. Where that direct indictment is made, the trial of the accused must begin within strict time lines to minimise the opportunity to intimidate or otherwise harass the victim or the witnesses;

a frightened witness is given the opportunity to give evidence as a vulnerable witness in the same way as any other person who faces intimidation in giving evidence against another;

provisions creating new offences and procedures directed against consorting, loitering and enabling place restriction and non-association orders; and

the special admission of evidence of what a frightened witness said out of court if through fear that person does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement.

The SOCC Act—Recent Developments in Queensland

By 2013, Queensland had a new government and it was determined to go beyond the previous nationally agreed model of counter-organised crime legislation. It enacted a large package of measures as the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 (Qld) with associated amendments, most notably in this context, amendments to the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld). The first part of the package contained the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (Qld) ('the VLAD Act') and new provisions of the Criminal Code annexed to the Criminal Code Act 1988 (Qld) ('the Criminal Code') and the Bail Act 1980 (Qld).

This package of legislation was in addition to the Criminal Organisation Act 2009 (Qld) discussed above. Significantly, it directed its attack at consorting-type behaviour and other behaviour associated with consorting.

The VLAD Act provided for significant additional penalties by way of imprisonment to be imposed upon persons convicted of declared offences who are participants in associations which had not been shown not to have a criminal purpose. New provisions in the Criminal Code provided for enhanced penalties to be imposed on persons, convicted of certain offences against the Criminal Code, in the aggravating circumstance where such persons are participants in organisations which are found to be, or had been declared by the Supreme Court or designated by regulation as, criminal organisations. The amendments to the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) imposed constraints upon the grant of bail to persons who were participants in such organisations if they are charged with any offences. Further amendments to the Criminal Code created new offences which effectively imposed restrictions upon the freedom of movement and association of participants in criminal organisations. Amendments to the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) proscribed the wearing or carrying in licensed premises of items bearing insignia and other markings of criminal organisations.

It is apparent that some of the features of this package of legislation borrowed from and adapted features of the Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2013.

Significantly, the definition of criminal organisation for the purposes of these offences includes an entity declared by regulation under the Criminal Code to be a criminal organisation. Section 708A of the Criminal Code sets out criteria which the Minister may have regard to in deciding whether to recommend a listing of a criminal organisation by regulation. The definition of criminal organisation also includes an organisation declared to be a criminal organisation under the Criminal Organisation Act 2009 and an organisation that had the purpose of committing serious criminal offences and posing an unacceptable risk to community safety.

But the Queensland Parliament took things a step further. Section 70 of the Criminal Law (Criminal Organisations Disruption) Amendment Act 2013 (Qld) said:

70 Making of Criminal Code (Criminal Organisations) Regulation 2013

(1) Schedule 1 has effect to make the Criminal Code (Criminal Organisations) Regulation 2013 that is set out in schedule 1 as a regulation under the Criminal Code.

(2) To remove any doubt, it is declared that the Criminal Code (Criminal Organisations) Regulation 2013, on the commencement of schedule 1, stops being a provision of this Act and becomes a regulation made under the Criminal Code.

Schedule 1 of the Act listed the organisations by name that were to be declared to be criminal organisations under the provisions ('criminal organisations') and also listed, by address, the places in which consorting or associating was to be made unlawful ('prescribed places'). These listing were by the provision quoted then deemed to have been made as regulations.

VLAD—The High Court Decision

The entire package was the subject of a constitutional challenge by a member of the Hells Angels Motor Cycle Club. The challenge reached the High Court.

The High Court divided the legislation challenged into three categories:

those provisions of the VLAD Act that imposed aggravated sentences on a participant in a criminal organisation found to have committed certain offences;

those new provisions of the Criminal Code that created new offences, an element of which included being a participant in a criminal organisation or which involved wearing or carrying symbols of criminal organisations; and

amendments to the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) reversing the presumption of bail for an accused alleged to be a participant in a criminal organisation.

The High Court was unanimous in deciding that the plaintiff did not have standing to challenge those provisions dealt with in categories one and three. It necessarily follows that the Court did not rule on the constitutional validity of those provisions. The 6:1 majority upheld the constitutional validity of those provisions in category two. It necessarily follows that the Court ruled the following measures to be constitutionally valid:

the offence of a being a participant in a criminal organisation being knowingly present in a public place with two or more other persons who are participants in a criminal organisation (section 60A of the Criminal Code);

the offence of being a participant in a criminal organisation entering a prescribed place or attending a prescribed event (section 60B of the Criminal Code);

the offence of being a participant in a criminal organisation recruiting anyone to become a participant in a criminal organisation (section 60C of the Criminal Code);

the offence of knowingly allowing a person who is wearing or carrying a prohibited item to enter or remain in liquor licensed premises (section 173EB of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld));

the offence of entering and remaining in licensed premises wearing or carrying a prohibited item (section 173EC of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld)); and

the offence of failing to leave licensed premises when required to leave because of wearing or carrying a prohibited item (section 173ED of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld)).

The High Court considered the device of defining a criminal organisation by regulation. The decision clearly says that this way of defining a criminal organisation is constitutionally valid 'for the purposes of these offences'.

Core Proposals

The Bill contains those same provisions, notably the new offences, both those in the Criminal Code and those in the Liquor Act, as enacted in Queensland and declared valid by the High Court. In addition, the Bill modifies South Australia's consorting provisions as enacted in New South Wales and declared valid by the High Court, modified in accordance with the advice of the Solicitor-General.

Moreover, this Bill contains the same provisions as Queensland enacted in specifying declared criminal organisations and prescribed places (although, of course, the places will differ).

The Bill names, in Schedules 1 and 2, the following as declared criminal organisations:

(a) the motorcycle club known as the Bandidos;

(b) the motorcycle club known as the Black Uhlans;

(c) the motorcycle club known as the Coffin Cheaters;

(d) the motorcycle club known as the Commancheros;

(e) the motorcycle club known as the Descendants;

(f) the motorcycle club known as the Finks;

(g) the motorcycle club known as the Fourth Reich;

(h) the motorcycle club known as the Gladiators;

(i) the motorcycle club known as the Gypsy Jokers;

(j) the motorcycle club known as the Hells Angels;

(k) the motorcycle club known as the Highway 61;

(l) the motorcycle club known as the Iron Horsemen;

(m) the motorcycle club known as the Life and Death;

(n) the motorcycle club known as the Lone Wolf;

(o) the motorcycle club known as the Mobshitters;

(p) the motorcycle club known as the Mongols;

(q) the motorcycle club known as the Muslim Brotherhood Movement;

(r) the motorcycle club known as the Nomads;

(s) the motor cycle club known as the Notorious;

(t) the motorcycle club known as the Odins Warriors;

(u) the motorcycle club known as the Outcasts;

(v) the motorcycle club known as the Outlaws;

(w) the motorcycle club known as the Phoenix;

(x) the motorcycle club known as the Rebels;

(y) the motorcycle club known as the Red Devils;

(z) the motorcycle club known as the Renegades;

(za) the motorcycle club known as the Scorpions.

Members should note that this list includes organisations that have a presence in South Australia and organisation that are based in other jurisdictions and do not.

It might be asked why this is being done. The answer is first, that the legislation will give Parliament the chance to debate and approve the listing of criminal organisations and the places and second, while the making of a regulation is open to judicial review, the decision of Parliament is not.

I have taken extensive and detailed advice from police both on names and places listed in Schedules 1 and 2 and have considered their inclusion by reference to the proposed statutory criteria for the making of regulations. I am satisfied, based on this advice, that each meets the proposed statutory criteria for the making of regulations.

Sentencing Considerations

A number of the Queensland offences provide for mandatory minimum penalties. This Government has consistently opposed mandatory minimum sentences and it should continue to do so.

Instead of a mandatory minimum penalty, the Bill provides:

imprisonment should ordinarily be imposed unless exceptional circumstances are found to exist;

the period or any part of it may only be suspended if exceptional circumstances are found to exist;

if exceptional circumstances are found in either or both instances, they must be detailed in written reasons; and

a finding of exceptional circumstances must be backed by evidence on oath.

In addition, provision is made for a 'standard non-parole period'. The standard non-parole period must be taken into account by the court in determining the appropriate sentence and, if the court fixes a different non-parole period, the court must record its reasons for so doing and must identify each factor that it took into account. The standard non-parole period specified is nine months and represents the non-parole period for an offence, being a first offence, in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for these offences.

Conclusion

This Bill represents another step forward in the fight against organised crime.

I commend the Bill to Members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

3—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935

4—Amendment of section 5—Interpretation

This clause modifies the definition of criminal organisation consequentially on the insertion of Part 3B Division 2. The definition refers to the definition contained in Part 3B Division 1 and as such remains unchanged by the measure.

5—Insertion of heading to Part 3B Division 1

This clause inserts a heading to Part 3B Division 1 which serves to wrap the present contents of Part 3B into a new Division 1.

6—Amendment of section 83D—Interpretation

This clause replaces references to the 'Part' with references to the 'Division', which is consequential on clause 5.

7—Amendment of section 83G—Evidentiary

This clause replaces references to the 'Part' with references to the 'Division', which is consequential on clause 5.

8—Insertion of Part 3B Division 2

This clause inserts Part 3 Division 2 comprised of 4 sections, 3 of which are offences in relation to criminal organisations.

Proposed section 83GA includes an interpretation subclause for the purposes of the Division and provides for a declaration, by regulation on the recommendation of the Minister, that specified entities are criminal organisations for the purposes of the Division. This proposed section also provides that a change in the name or membership of a criminal organisation, or a reforming of a criminal organisation into another organisation, will not affect the status of the organisation as a criminal organisation.

Proposed section 83GB provides that any person who is a participant in a criminal organisation and is knowingly present in a public place with 2 or more other persons who are participants in a criminal organisation commits an offence. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.

Proposed section 83GC provides 2 offences. Firstly, any person who is a participant in a criminal organisation and enters, or attempts to enter, a prescribed place commits an offence. Secondly, any person who is a participant in a criminal organisation and attends, or attempts to attend, a prescribed event commits an offence. The maximum penalty in each case is imprisonment for 3 years.

Proposed section 83GD provides that any person who is a participant in a criminal organisation and recruits, or attempts to recruit, anyone to become a participant in a criminal organisation commits an offence. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.

Proposed section 83GE provides for matters related to sentencing which must be followed unless the sentencing court finds exceptional reasons exist for departing from the requirements of the section. The requirements are that—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed on the person;

(b) the sentence of imprisonment cannot be suspended;

(c) sections 17 and 18 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 do not apply;

(d) section 18A(1) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 does not apply (but nothing in this subsection affects the operation of that section in respect of other offences for which the person is being sentenced).

Proposed section 83GE also requires a court, if the court is required to impose a non-parole period in sentencing a person for an offence against the Division, to have regard to the standard non-parole period, being 9 months (and representative of the non-parole period for an offence, being a first offence, in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for offences in the Division). The court must provide written reasons if it departs from the standard non-parole period.

Proposed section 83GF provides that if a court, on application by the DPP, declares an organisation to be a criminal organisation within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition of criminal organisation, then that organisation will, for the purposes of any subsequent criminal proceedings, be taken to be a criminal organisation (within the meaning of that paragraph) in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Part 3—Amendment of Liquor Licensing Act 1997

9—Insertion of Part 7B

This clause inserts new Part 7B dealing with offences relating to criminal organisations.

Proposed section 117B includes definitions for the purposes of the Part. Importantly, prohibited item means an item of clothing or jewellery or an accessory that displays the name of a declared criminal organisation, the club patch, insignia or logo of a declared criminal organisation or any image, symbol, abbreviation, acronym or other form of writing that indicates membership of, or an association with, a declared criminal organisation. This clause also provides that a change in the name or membership of a declared criminal organisation, or a reforming of a declared criminal organisation into another organisation, will not affect the status of the organisation as a declared criminal organisation.

Proposed section 117C provides an offence for the licensee, the responsible person or an employee or agent of the licensee or responsible person working at the premise if they knowingly allow a person who is wearing or carrying a prohibited item to enter or remain in licensed premise. The maximum penalty is $10,000. It is proposed that there be a defence for a defendant to prove that the defendant or another person referred to in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) made a request to a police officer in accordance with section 117E(2a) in relation to the person wearing or carrying a prohibited item.

Proposed section 117D provides that a person must not enter or remain in licensed premises if the person is wearing or carrying a prohibited item. The maximum penalty is $25,000 for a first offence, $50,000 or imprisonment for 6 months for a second offence and $100,000 or imprisonment for 18 months for a third or subsequent offence.

Proposed section 117E provides that if an authorised person requires a person who is wearing or carrying a prohibited item to leave licensed premises, the person must immediately leave the premises. This section also provides that if a person fails to leave when required to, an authorised person may use necessary and reasonable force to remove the person and if a person referred to in section 117C(1)(a), (b) or (c) requests a police officer to exercise a power conferred by this section in relation to a person, the police officer must do so if satisfied that the power may be exercised in relation to the person under the section. The maximum penalty in each case is $25,000 for a first offence, $50,000 or imprisonment for 6 months for a second offence and $100,000 or imprisonment for 18 months for a third or subsequent offence.

Further, proposed section 117E provides an offence of resisting an authorised person who is removing a person. The maximum penalty is $50,000 or imprisonment for 6 months for a first offence and $100,000 or imprisonment for 18 months for a second or subsequent offence.

Part 4—Amendment of Summary Offences Act 1953

10—Substitution of section 13

This clause substitutes a new section dealing with the offence of consorting. The proposed new offence applies to a person who habitually consorts with convicted offenders (whether in or out of South Australia) and then consorts with those persons after being issued with an official warning in relation to each of the convicted offenders. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years. The provisions lists types of consorting that is to be disregarded if it is shown to be reasonable in the circumstances, such as consorting with family members or in the course of lawful employment.

11—Amendment of section 66A—Senior police officer may issue consorting prohibition notice

This clause amends the section 66A so that the provisions relating to consorting prohibition notices do not apply in relation to a person the subject of a control order under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008.

Part 5—Regulations

12—Preliminary

This clause provides that the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 does not apply in relation to a regulation made pursuant to this Part.

13—Making of Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015

This clause provides that Schedule 1 has effect to make the Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015 (which are set out in the Schedule) being regulations that will be taken to have been made under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.

14—Making of Liquor Licensing (Declared Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015

This clause provides that Schedule 2 has effect to make the Liquor Licensing (Declared Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015 (which are set out in the Schedule) being regulations that will be taken to have been made under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997.

Schedule 1—Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015

1—Short title

This clause provides the short title of the regulations, the Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015.

2—Organisations declared to be criminal organisations—section 83GA

This clause provides the list of entities declared to be criminal organisations for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of criminal organisation in proposed section 83GA(1) of the Act.

3—Places declared to be prescribed places—section 83GA

This clause provides the list of places declared to be prescribed places for the purposes of the definition of prescribed places in proposed section 83GA(1) of the Act.

Schedule 2—Liquor Licensing (Declared Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015

1—Short title

This clause provides the short title of the regulations, the Liquor Licensing (Declared Criminal Organisations) Regulations 2015.

2—Organisations declared to be declared criminal organisations

This clause provides the list of entities declared to be declared criminal organisations for the purposes of the definition of criminal organisation in proposed section 117B(1) of the Act.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

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