Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Leader of the Opposition) [12.05 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals support giving police the powers to tackle crime in all its forms across this State. The Liberal-Nationals support police being given the resources to do that job on behalf of the people of New South Wales. That is why we are happy to support the passage of the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009, because it stands in stark contrast with what this Government has been doing for the past six months, and for the past 14 years. Police wanted these powers last year and were denied them by the Rees Government. Police wanted these powers. They wanted the resources to have a capacity to smash criminal bikie gangs, not just to lock up criminal bikie members. But this State Government, so pre-occupied with spin and with its own internal factionalism said, "No." It said, "Wait." It has taken a disastrous attack at Sydney Airport 10 days ago to get this Government to wake up to the crisis within our community.

If ever there were need for evidence of a State Labor Government asleep at the wheel, these events provide it. The Government did not respond when police asked it last year for powers to tackle this issue, but waited until someone was murdered in broad daylight, in public, in horrific circumstances at Sydney Airport. It is classic State Labor Government. It is catch-up politics, and that is the concern of the Opposition. If police had been given these powers, whether last year or earlier, we would not have the reign of terror that exists across this city today—bashings, bombings, beatings, murders and drive-by shootings in suburbs where, but for the grace of God, no bystander has yet been seriously injured or killed. Police need the resources to tackle what is now a sophisticated criminal regime run by outlaw motorcycle gangs, half of whom are headquartered in this State, as Federal police commissioner Mick Keelty said last Sunday.

Two years ago in South Australia the Labor Premier blew the whistle on what was happening in that State, urged national action and urged other States to follow suit with the powers that he was about to give his police, the fighters of crime in his State. But what did the New South Wales Labor Government do? Absolutely nothing. It sat on its hands and allowed the problem to fester in New South Wales to the extent that on a Sunday afternoon in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of innocent members of the public, a person was murdered, bashed to death with a bollard, at Sydney Airport. That is the cost of Labor's failure to give the police the powers in this State required to tackle this issue. It is not just about powers because, no matter how many powers we give to the police, unless there are resources available to police—particularly the number of police available—it will all be for nought.

That is why we are concerned. We have seen freedom of information figures that demonstrate that the number of detectives assigned to local area commands has fallen from 2,370 to 1,596—a drop of 800 in the number of experienced police dealing with the sort of intelligence that could have anticipated and dealt with the crisis that we see in Sydney today and to which this legislation seeks to respond. Those who continue to repeat their mistakes truly are without brains. That is best exemplified by the State Government, which for 14 years has allowed this problem to fester and failed to respond to reasonable requests by police to have the power to tackle sophisticated outlaw motorcycle gangs in 2009, and has also allowed the number of experienced police—across the board, but particularly experienced police engaged as detectives—to fall to the sorts of numbers indicated.

It gets worse than that because between November 2008 and 11 December 2008 there were 16 drive-by shootings, which were put down to the work of outlaw motorcycle gangs in this city. Whilst our current point of reference in this debate is the horrendous episode at Sydney Airport 10 days ago, the fact is that this has been brewing. It was clearly brewing in November and December last year when, in the course of a month, 16 drive-by shootings occurred, in Mount Druitt, Fairfield, Seven Hills, Belmore, Glenwood, Carlingford, Leumeah and Merrylands—mainly areas represented by those opposite. They are areas represented by Labor Party members who, if they had been awake, would have been supporting their police at the time and arguing for stronger powers. It is just another sign that the malaise, incompetence and inexperience that infects the ministry also affects those who sit behind it—and no-one on that side is without blame.

But what do we see? Police numbers—not just detectives, but police numbers generally—have dropped in those local area commands that are in the middle of increased drive-by shooting violence. As the shadow Minister Michael Gallacher so amply demonstrated yesterday, we have seen a drop in the number of police in the areas that have been particularly affected by drive-by shootings. We have had police requests for additional powers last year ignored. We have seen this State Government preside over a reduction in the number of detectives—the people we rely upon in the police service to use the intelligence to put in place the strategies to deal with organised crime, and in this case it is organised crime of the most sophisticated type. We see Labor members sitting on their hands, even though they represent areas that have experienced drive-by shootings and where the number of available general duties police has fallen. It is incompetence on incompetence on incompetence, and that is the recipe for the reign of terror that currently affects this city and the recipe that delivers to us this type of legislation.

We make no mistake on this side. Whether through Michael Gallacher, an experienced former policemen who understands what life on the front line is like, or through Greg Smith, an experienced prosecutor who understands these sorts of villains and the villainy they get up to in this State, we have people on this side of the House who understand what needs to be done at the very front line. More importantly, I am supported by colleagues in the lower House and the upper House who understand the impact of this reign of terror that has been allowed to grow by the State Labor Government on innocent families, innocent businesses and innocent communities. That is why for many months, and indeed for years in the case of some of my colleagues on this side, we have been arguing to give police the powers and resources needed. But when you have a government that is so focused upon itself, whose members' sole drive seems to be to become Premier or determine who is going to be the next Premier, when you have a government that is determined by people who want to make sure they have a job in either this ministry or Carmel Tebbutt's ministry, or whoever follows her, it is not focusing on the needs of this community. That is how you end up with a bloke like Tony Kelly as police Minister.

Last week Mr Kelly's contribution to the public debate about gangs in this State was to say that New South Wales has the toughest gang laws in the nation. If that is the case, how is it possible that the Federal police commissioner pointed on Sunday to the fact that half of all criminal bikie gangs in this nation are headquartered in New South Wales? If we had the toughest gang laws in the nation, surely half the gangs would be in Victoria and there would be none in New South Wales. But no, gentle Mr Kelly in the upper House believes that we have the toughest gang laws in the nation. The need for the legislation that we are debating today, which is supported by our side of the House, bells the lie of the police Minister who lives in cloud-cuckoo-land, who not only said last week that we have the toughest gang laws in the nation but said on Monday on Adam Spencer's 2BL radio program that everything was under control. He has to be the only bloke in the State who thinks everything is under control. Certainly the Premier today does not believe it is under control, otherwise we would not be rushing this legislation through in this way. If we had the toughest gang laws, if everything was under control, we would not be pushing this legislation through all stages today.

The Government woke up to the organised criminal activities of bikies across this State on the day of the bashing at Sydney Airport—although, to be fair, that is being pretty kind to them because it took a couple of days before the Premier even reacted. The first reaction was a good reaction. The first reaction was to increase the number of police in the State's gang squad. What is important for members of this House to understand is that, until the Government took the position of increasing the number of police officers in the State's gang squad by 75 in the days following the murder at Sydney Airport, there was a gang squad in this State that consisted of 50 police officers. We live in a strong and vibrant State, four times the size of South Australia. We live in a city that is four times the size of Adelaide. And guess what? Until two weeks ago we had a gang squad in this State that was the same size as the gang squad in South Australia. If you want evidence of a State government asleep at the wheel, if you want evidence of a State government that has almost turned a blind eye to the activity of outlaw motorcycle gangs in New South Wales, it is in that figure. It does not give police the resources in the gang squad even to match the resources in South Australia and it does not give the police in the gang squad the powers that they have in South Australia. It just gets worse and worse and worse.

We will support this legislation because it reflects our view that the police do important jobs for the community. They are the first people that we seek to go to when there is a crisis, when there is a disaster or when we feel threatened. But they are of no use unless they have the power and the resources to do their job. That is why we will support this legislation. I make the point that we take the legislation on trust. Whilst I am grateful to have had a 10-minute briefing from the Attorney General on the legislation shortly before coming into the Chamber, I do take the legislation on trust. I trust that the Government has got the drafting of this legislation right. We have to hope that, in the Government's attempt to detract from its failure to tackle the outlaw motorcycle gang problem earlier and its failure to give police the power and resources to tackle criminal bikie gangs that have conducted a reign of terror across this State—its failure evidenced by the drive-by shootings, the bombings, bashings, beatings and murders that have occurred across the city in recent months—this legislation does what is claimed for it and that it is not being simply rushed through today to provide the Premier with another opportunity to try to distract the media from the other failings of the State Government.

There are strong, far-reaching powers in this legislation and I think on balance they are welcomed by the community in this State because it will seek to overcome past inaction by the State Labor Government that has allowed outlaw motorcycle gangs to conduct a reign of terror across suburbs apparently with impunity. We are talking about criminal motorcycle gangs, not well-respected people who enjoy motorcycles, who are members of motorcycle clubs and who respect their machines whether they are Triumphs or BMWs—we are not talking about those people. We are not talking about the Country Women's Association. We are not talking about the Returned Services League. We are not talking about Rotary or some Lions club. We are talking about outlaw motorcycle gangs who engage in the most sophisticated crime that we could imagine. We have seen in recent times good work by Ross Coulthard on Channel 7 and by other radio and television stations detailing the extent of the tentacles of these bikie gangs in crime in this State and across the nation. We need to fight fire with fire. We need to give police the power to match the sophisticated level that these bikie gangs have been allowed to reach.

I have to say to those who elicit some concern about these powers that to some extent, at one level, they are the same concerns that were expressed when we first introduced breathalyser laws in this State. Why should the great bulk of people be inconvenienced because of one or two idiots who drive their cars when they are under the influence? The good answer is that we give police the powers to stop us and randomly breath-test us so that we are protected from those idiots who will kill not just themselves but others on the road. In the same way we need powers to ensure that we protect innocent bystanders. I would have no problem if you put all the outlaw motorcycle gang members in two rooms and allowed them to shoot themselves to death. I would have no problems with that at all.

My problem is that in the current climate in New South Wales there are drive-by shootings, bashings, bombings and murders that could at any stage affect an innocent bystander. That is why we need to give police these powers. I recognise that within the legislation, the Ombudsman—for whom as an individual and for whose office I have an enormous respect—has the capacity to continue to review the application of these powers over their first two years by police and others. I recognise that within this legislation there is a capacity after five years to review the powers completely. I urge the Attorney General that that review not be undertaken by the Attorney General's Department but by a retired Supreme Court judge so that the public can have some confidence that the review will be undertaken by someone who, like the Ombudsman, has a degree of independence.

There are many laws on the statute books about which we could and should be fearful if we were engaging in criminal activity. That is important. We need to give police the powers to do what they need to do on our behalf to stamp out criminal activity. We also need to send a message to those, whether in this area or other areas, that if they do the wrong thing there are significant powers to deal with them. I say to those members of the community who may elicit some concerns about this legislation that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. We have everything to fear from outlaw motorcycle gangs who are running amok across this State, seemingly with impunity, and one of these days one of our constituents—one of our residents and one of the people that we are sent here to protect and represent—will end up in the middle of a melee and be either seriously injured or killed.

I am the parent of two young kids. We know that the single biggest activity of outlaw motorcycle gangs relates to drugs. We want to get serious about illegal drugs in this State—everything from heroin through to ecstasy. We need to crack down on these outlaw motorcycle gangs so that my children and the children of everyone else across this State have some confidence that as they grow older and go out and about they are not going to be exposed to the sorts of pernicious activities that these people are involved in. I support this legislation. The shadow Attorney General will in his contribution address the legislation in greater legal detail. Let there be no doubt that we on this side of the House will always support our police service. We on this side of the House will always support giving police the powers they need to tackle the crime problem in our community. We on this side of the House will always support police in their requests for resources to do that job on behalf of the community. As the grandson of a policeman I will never stand for anything less.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron—Minister for Planning, and Minister for Redfern Waterloo) [12.23 p.m.]: I speak also on the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009. That was an interesting contribution from the Leader of the Opposition. Whilst I welcome the Opposition's support for the bill, I observe that the Leader of the Opposition has stooped to a new low. He has copied the member for Vaucluse, Peter Debnam, with his talk of "Lock them up, throw away the key. Let them shoot themselves." What he has done by that reckless and silly comment is given gangs a green light to continue their war and their violence on our streets. He stands here and mouths support for the bill but makes reckless and silly comments like that. He needs to decide whether he wants a career as an Internet blogger or whether he wants to be taken seriously as a credible leader in this State. Certainly that was a reckless comment from the Opposition.

Every member of the Rees Government is aware of just how important it is to get legislation like this right. We want to ensure that police have laws that work. No-one wants police operations going wrong or prosecutions being dropped because the wrong laws were passed by Parliament. That is why the Government has sought the advice of Michael Sexton, SC, the Solicitor General, on these new laws. I am pleased to say that his advice indicates that our laws are firmly grounded in established constitutional principles. You cannot stop people challenging laws, but you can do everything in your power to fireproof those laws from being struck down. We know that gangs will try to use every technicality to get away with their crimes, so we have taken the smart approach and had the very best advisors to Government putting together this legislation, in some cases working round the clock. We need to act quickly to send a message to bikies that their time is up. That does not mean that we have acted rashly or without adequate safeguards. It is important to outline these to members of the House, so the public can rest assured that we have struck the right balance in acting against these gangs.

The Commissioner of Police will need to make an application to an eligible Supreme Court judge, sitting in his or her personal capacity, for a particular organisation to be declared a criminal organisation. That application must be in writing, and must satisfy a number of criteria, such as describing the nature of the gang, specifying the names of persons that the commissioner reasonably believes are members of the gang and setting out the grounds on which the declaration is sought, including any supporting information. Critically, it must also be supported by an affidavit from the police commissioner or other senior police officers verifying the contents of the application. The Commissioner of Police will need to notify the Attorney General of applications made under these new laws, both in relation to the declaration of organisations and the declaration of persons as members of organisations, and supply the Attorney General with the full details, including criminal intelligence, if the Attorney General so requests. Importantly, the Attorney General may be present and make submissions as to the hearing of applications.

Applications made to declare an organisation will need to be notified in the Government Gazette and in at least one newspaper, outlining the consequences for members who are subsequently made subject to an interim control order, and inviting members of the organisation and those who may be directly affected to make submissions to the judge in the first instance. A member of an organisation may also be present at a hearing to declare that organisation. So may others directly affected. The judge, acting in his or her personal capacity, will have to be satisfied that the gang is organised for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity and that it represents a risk to public safety and order in our State. This test will apply whether or not all the members are engaged in this type of activity or if the group is also involved in lawful activity. While these declarations will remain in force for three years, the judge may revoke a declaration at any time following a request by the police commissioner or by considering an application by a member of that organisation.

Following the declaration of an organisation, the Commissioner of Police may then seek from the Supreme Court, through a written application once again supported by affidavit, interim control orders for members of that organisation. If satisfied that persons are members of a declared organisation and there are sufficient grounds for making an interim control order, the Supreme Court, sitting in its judicial capacity, may make such orders against those persons. Within 28 days of the making of interim control orders, the police commissioner must serve notice on those persons that are subject to the orders. The notice must, among other things, set out the grounds on which the order was made and explain the consequences of the orders in terms of restrictions on associations with other people who are subject to an interim control order and the suspension of licences or other authorisations in particular industries.

We recognise that in some cases it will be very difficult for some controlled members to cease associating with other controlled members from the time that the interim control order is served. Some exemptions will be necessary along with mechanisms to allow controlled members to adjust to the restrictions. The bill addresses this issue in the following ways. Certain associations are specifically exempted from the interim control order until such time as that order is confirmed or withdrawn—if the controlled member shows that he or she is reasonable, for example, in associations between close family members and associations occurring in the course of a lawful occupation. Controlled members who do not fall into these specific exemptions but who nonetheless may have cause to argue that the restrictions are unreasonable or should be varied, will be able to apply for an expedited hearing to settle the matter.

When the Supreme Court is finalising these control orders, individuals also have the right to appear before a judge and make submissions relating to the application. Importantly, they can also seek to convince the court there are reasons that they may need to associate lawfully with another declared member or to arrange their business affairs prior to a loss of licence. I emphasise that these provisions apply only when the court is satisfied there is a good reason to do so. The court may also vary or revoke an order on application, depending on the evidence presented. The commissioner or the person subject to the control order may also appeal to the Court of Appeal following a Supreme Court order. This may be on a question of law or with leave on a question of fact.

The making of an appeal does not affect the operation of a control order to which the appeal relates. It is no accident that we are using Supreme Court judges, both in their personal capacity and as judicial officers, to give effect to the processes in this legislation. Our judges use complex laws every day and they are best suited to consider the complex matters with which this legislation deals. That is the reason why they are also best suited to consider the protection given to criminal intelligence in this bill. I know that some members view withholding information from defendants in proceedings as something out of the ordinary. I expect that some third party lobby groups will also have strong views on the topic. However, this process is not without precedent.

Similar provisions already exist in the Security Industry Act and in legislation in other States. Importantly, discretion remains with the judge as to whether such information can be classified properly as criminal intelligence and whether it should be withheld from the defendant. As such, the judge, not the police commissioner, makes this decision. This process has been upheld as constitutionally valid by the High Court. While every piece of legislation is different, I remind members of the advice of the Solicitor General outlining how these laws rest on well-established constitutional precedents. I remind this House that every member of this Government wants to seek new powers that work for police, and powers that are also balanced and fair.

Police need certainty that their operations are firmly based in law and bolstered by adequate safeguards. I remind the House of the advice of the Crown Solicitor, the role of the Attorney General, the right for defendants to appear and make submissions, the ability to seek expedited hearings in case of hardship, the reasonable exceptions for the crime of association, and the protections of criminal intelligence. We want to ensure that the police have laws that work. I note that it is the intention of the Opposition to support this bill today. I remind members of the rather reckless and silly comment of the Leader of the Opposition that he would have no trouble sticking all bikie members in a room and allowing them to shoot themselves up. What a ridiculous comment from a man who purports to be Premier material! What a ridiculous comment from the Leader of the Opposition! It shows that Opposition members have not put a great deal of thought into their policy or their response to the challenge we are facing in New South Wales because a group of people think they can ignore the law.

Mr Thomas George: It is the laziness of this Government.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: The member for Lismore seems to think that the speed with which this bill was introduced excuses the Leader of the Opposition from making such a reckless and silly comment. Before concluding I will highlight the successes that Strike Force Raptor has already had in cracking down on outlaw gangs. Strike Force Raptor has built on the success of previous police operations and brought the dedicated efforts of 125 police officers to bear on criminal gangs. Strike Force Raptor follows Operation Ranmore, which resulted in nearly 900 arrests and 2,000 charges against individual members of outlaw gangs. The Premier has also announced Reference Leeton, bringing the powers of the New South Wales Crime Commission down upon criminal gangs. In fact, 12 members of various outlaw gangs have been arrested since the shocking incident at Sydney Airport. Putting on my local member's hat, as the member who represents Sydney Airport I was shocked and sickened by what happened at that airport. Many airport employees who live in the Heffron electorate do not expect their workplace to be visited by this sort of reckless violence.

Mr Thomas George: All people have that expectation.

Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: As the member for Lismore rightly said, all people have that expectation. That is why the Government responded swiftly with appropriate measures that will enable it to break up these criminal gangs and take this sort of decisive action. We are acting in a serious, considered and forceful way, unlike Opposition members who say that we should just throw all bikies in a room and let them shoot themselves up. That is a licence to continue this type of violence and the sort of behaviour that we saw at Sydney Airport. That sort of violence will spill out into other venues in our community—venues where workers and families have the right to expect that they can gather without this sort of violence being visited upon them. Government members have made a measured, reasonable, strong and thorough response to this type of challenge, and action has already been taken. In contrast, we have heard nothing from Opposition members other than rhetoric, and reckless and silly comments—comments such as those we heard today from the Leader of the Opposition. I support this legislation and I support the Government's actions. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [12.36 p.m.]: On the grounds of justice and fairness I expected to have more time to examine this extraordinary piece of legislation that is based on so-called criminal intelligence and that can lead to persons ultimately being prosecuted for associating with one another. The normal rule for criminal offences is that one has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Other legislation in this State deals with methods of gathering evidence by electronic surveillance, whether by listening device or by telephone interception. Whilst criminal intelligence is used chiefly to ground applications for warrants from judges in chambers for those who commit criminal acts, there is a difference. That might produce evidence of criminal activity or admissions made over the telephone, in a house, in a car, or wherever there is a listening device.

However, that evidence then has to be tested. It has to go before a court where the persons involved who are charged with some criminal offence can cross-examine and challenge the interpretation that has been put on the product. For example, criminal gangs often use codes. They might use the word "carpets", "diamonds", "eggs" or things that cover a quantity of drugs or a type of drug. Sometimes police have to lead evidence from experts who have worked undercover in a gang, from those who have rolled over and become a witness, or from police experts on the terminology used. All that can be tested.

In the brief time that I have had available to me to look at this legislation one problem I can see is that the criminal intelligence that is used to ground the declaration is not accessible to the person or organisation that is the subject of the application. Criminal intelligence could be rated as highly reliable and from an impeccable source such as an eyewitness, from a member of the community who is credible, or from sworn evidence. It could also be information from a criminal, a paid informer to the police who gives information for various reasons. It might be that he is being paid to give information, and it might be that he wants to put his opposition out of business. It could also be information from an anonymous source. It could also be totally fabricated.

In 99 per cent of cases police do the right thing, but I have seen affidavits sworn by police containing false information. In one particular case a policeman was charged with criminal offences because he had sworn an affidavit before a magistrate making false allegations about the suspect whose house he wanted to search. Nevertheless, the magistrate accepted the information and the warrant was issued. A judge sitting in his chambers has no assistance regarding the reliability of the intelligence provided. It is a serious matter that should be taken into account because of the implications of this legislation. Perhaps a much fairer scheme should test the orders or declaration being sought.

The recent High Court case has given validity to using criminal intelligence to oppose the granting of a liquor licence. Perhaps that might be the best way to proceed in that instance, but the liquor laws and the Licensing Court allow evidence to be given by both sides. Much of the evidence opposing the granting of a liquor licence is available to the person seeking the licence. Perhaps some of the criminal intelligence is informer based and the life of that informer may be endangered with the release of important information. That is all taken into account. From my brief reading, this legislation, which I have had for only a short time, does not seem to contain the same checks and balances. The bill specifies that the person seeking the declaration does not have to be present. Under the proposed Act the Attorney General will be given notice of the application and has a right to be present at hearings, but he has no right to oppose it. Would he? The Attorney General is considered the guardian of the law, a friend of the court. Why has he been removed from the process?

One of the checks and balances in the South Australian legislation is that the Attorney General must be satisfied that proper grounds exist for making a declaration. The current application concerning the Finks bikie group has been with the Attorney General for some months. He has not yet made his decision to make the declaration; perhaps he is not satisfied that the material is strong enough. Perhaps he is not satisfied that the legislation allows him to proceed because it might be ultra vires the Constitution. We are sure that bikie groups will attack this area of the legislation. If judicial power is to be exercised, as judges have to in the Finks case, it may infringe chapter 3 of the Constitution and the principles of the Kable case.

This is rushed legislation. We have read in the newspapers that the Solicitor General has been called in to assist. No-one is perfect; mistakes can be made. One of the great things about getting the views of the community, particularly the legal community, about changing the law on such an important issue and removing the rights of citizens, is that the Law Society and the Bar Association have top lawyers who can provide learned views—that is what they do. From time to time we do not hear much from them because they are asked to respond after a bill has been introduced. This bill particularly should have been circulated and stakeholders should have been given appropriate time to consider it.

In some ways this bill is akin to the terrorist legislation, which contained problems in its application that required amendments and resulted in Federal court cases—for example, the case of Dr Haneef being released and then his bringing action for damages because of the way he was treated. The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009 is extraordinary in that it takes away citizens' powers. It needs closer scrutiny. The terrorist legislation was given close scrutiny before it was enacted. Something must be done in response to the recent crisis of lawlessness between comparatively small groups—almost a civil war. However, we do not need to rush legislation through. The Opposition and the crossbenchers should at least be given time to obtain advice—perhaps from constitutional or other experts.

Being humble servants of this Parliament and the community, my leader and I will do our best. We do not oppose the legislation because it would be inappropriate to stop some action from being taken to end this current war. This bill has missing from it the power given to the South Australian Attorney General to make the first declaration before courts can start making orders declaring and controlling people by saying they cannot mix with each other. That places a big question mark over this bill. It would be better to have someone a little removed from the legislation and the criminal investigation than just the Commissioner of Police. He is a very good man and an outstanding commissioner but, naturally, his operational police are pushing him because they want the power to lock up bikies and protect this State. Of course, that is a good thing, but sometimes the checks and balances are essential; that is why the Independent Commission Against Corruption or the Police Integrity Commission do not prosecute their own offences—they are investigators.

This bill allows the investigator to go directly to court rather than have the Attorney General carry out the checks and balances. If those who will be affected by this legislation are unable to obtain access to the material to be used against them, the bill will be back in this place to enable us to correct the errors and the flaws in it. Does the Government want to operate the law in this State in that fashion? In any event, we support it. The affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, referred to in clause 6, in supporting the declaration would constitute hearsay because somebody would have given him the information. The commissioner would not have direct knowledge of the information in the affidavit because he does not have the time to acquire such information: he is not an operational policeman. His affidavit would contain intelligence and a mixture of information from informers, surveillance and other means of evidence gathering. Such an affidavit is not as reliable as sworn evidence given in a court and tested by cross-examination. Clause 7 states that notice of application must be published in the Government Gazette. How many people read the Government Gazette? Some would say it is available to everyone, but it is not easily available to everyone. Notice must be published also in at least one newspaper circulating throughout the State.

Mr Frank Terenzini: A lot of people read the Sydney Morning Herald.

Mr GREG SMITH: All right, the notice of application can be published in the Daily Telegraph because that is what two-thirds of the people seem to read.

Mr Frank Terenzini: Well, you read it for questions.

Mr GREG SMITH: Well, you lot leak things to its writers; you have front-page stories. Members of the organisation and other persons who may be directly affected, whether adversely, by the outcome of the application are invited to make submissions to the eligible judge at a hearing. I suspect that all one could submit is, "I'm not a member of this organisation for a start." The affidavit might contain information that says, "Yes he is; he's the Sergeant at Arms of the Hell's Angels" or whatever group is being named, but he may not be a member. He may have the same name as someone else. For example, it could be Frank Terenzini—there could be 10 of them or 100; there are probably 500 Greg Smiths around. The accused will have to find out from the newspaper whether they are the subject of the declaration. Who would look at that? There might be two Frank Terenzinis, either in Hells Angels or trying to join.

Mr Frank Terenzini: There is only one Frank Terenzini.

Mr GREG SMITH: I see. The subject of the declaration is allowed to be present and make submissions at a hearing, but how can they respond if they do not have the material that has been alleged against them? That is one of the problems. I know that there are limits and that we do not want to give a person who is the subject of an application documents that might identify an informer because there is no doubt that is a contrary to the public interest. But there may be a lot of material that includes so-called criminal intelligence submitted by an opponent of the so-called gang that has been submitted for the express purpose of damaging the subject. The subject of the application may be able to identify that it is rubbish and has been fabricated, and may be able to prove that that had already been clarified because the accuser admitted in the past that he or she was lying. But the judge does not receive any contradicter to the information that is presented. This legislation is extraordinary because, in normal court proceedings, such matters could be tested.

Clause 9 states that an eligible judge may make a declaration provided that the eligible judge is satisfied that members of the organisation "associate for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity". Only 40 seconds remain for my examination of the bill, which has a number of bombs in it. Among the matters that an eligible judge must consider is whether a link exists between the organisation and serious criminal activity. The Opposition has not been able to test or seek advice on whether this bill is constitutionally valid. I seek an extension of time to enable me to examine this important legislation. The Opposition received the bill only during the past three-quarters of an hour. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Mr David Campbell: But you are supporting it.

Mr GREG SMITH: Of course the Opposition supports it. In considering whether to make a declaration, a number of matters set out in clause 9 subparagraphs (a) to (f) must be taken into account, and that clause includes a provision that the judge may take into account anything the judge considers relevant. The Attorney General may make submissions. Once the judge makes a declaration, the commissioner must publish notice of the declaration in the Government Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating throughout the State. The declaration can be revoked, even though it would otherwise last forever, upon a request being made in writing by the commissioner or by an application from a member of the organisation.

Again I make the point: How can a member of an organisation have the declaration revoked without evidence contradicting what has already been put to the judge, particularly if what has been said is false, unless by some sort of process the organisation's members find out what has been said against them? I have no sympathy whatsoever for outlaw members or groups, but everyone is entitled to defend criminal charges brought against them and against findings that may be made against them. From my cursory reading of the bill, I do not think sufficient provision has been made to enable people to defend themselves.

Clause 24 provides for a right of appeal. The commissioner or the controlled member may appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of a court that has made a control order, but the court does not have to give reasons for its decision. Usually appeals are based on some error of law or some misuse of fact in the original judgement, but in this case there will be no original judgement. This is yet another instance of the inadequate protection in the provisions of the bill, but in this instance it relates to inadequate protection by a right of appeal. The Opposition wants to do what can lawfully be done to protect the community from gangs that are urban terrorists, which is why the Opposition will not oppose the conferring of extraordinary powers.

However, as this legislation concerns material and laws that are extraordinary, the Opposition should have had far more time to consider it. The Premier's version yesterday was that the bill would not be presented until June, but now it has appeared today. Clause 28, "Criminal Intelligence", deals with a whole lot of material that can be submitted or withdrawn. The judge may rule that the intelligence submitted is not of a sufficient standard or that there is insufficient intelligence on which to base a declaration. That would be quite embarrassing, but it happens. One of the safeguards of the legal system is that judges act independently, and that is why they are appointed.

In yesterday's Australian newspaper, Mark Le Grande, who is a former colleague and very eminent chaser of criminals, said that the legislation will not work and is obnoxious. He supports implementation of legislation that is equivalent to the American Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act—the RICO statute. That statute deals with racketeer influence and corrupt organisations, and bikie gangs would fit that definition. Mark Le Grande's reasons are largely based on civil liberties arguments, but also on the fact that we should not introduce extreme laws without testing laws that have already been implemented throughout the world and have been found to be appropriate. The America legislation has been very effective. It basically attacks the assets of criminals and people who have been declared to be involved in rackets or who are racketeers.

The American legislation provides for seizure of their assets and imposes pecuniary penalties that are three times the amount of the profit gained from racketeering. The Opposition suggests that the Government should examine similar provisions for implementation. If this bikie problem is out of hand and is not resolved by this legislation or by the extra work of the very able police task force, which was supplemented recently and is working on it, God help us. I hope it does work. However, the Government should look at other means of dealing with the problems these gangs cause, such as taking away their money. The United States legislation has been very effective against other criminals, and I suggest it will be equally effective in addressing this problem.

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [12.56 p.m.]: My contribution to debate on the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009 will be brief, as opposed to the contribution made by the member for Epping, who seems to have been able to manipulate the fabric of the space-time continuum. His 20 minutes seemed like an hour to me! But it was all good stuff.

Mr Greg Smith: I will not invite you to my party.

Mr GREG PIPER: No, I will not be going to the member for Epping's party. I support the legislation, but I have reservations about it. This is a complicated social issue. The legislation is likely to be challenged, and it may have unforeseen consequences. As we know from physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and that is the case in everything we do in many parts of society. I am concerned about the need for this legislation, although I recognise that the escalation in gang activity has generated a need for the Government to respond. I respect that the Government is charged with the very grave responsibility of protecting our community and making people feel safe in their homes and communities. While I respect that, I am very concerned about the pace at which this legislation has been drafted and introduced, and I am also concerned about unforeseen consequences.

This is hastily prepared legislation. A number of comments made by Government members, including the Premier, suggested that the legislation was likely to be introduced at the beginning of this week, but it has been delayed owing to the need for further consultation. The appropriate course of action would have been for the Government to draw a deep breath, relax a bit, and give at least a few weeks for greater examination of the bill by the community and certainly by members of Parliament. But that has not been the case. Members are being challenged either to agree with or to vote against this legislation. I will not vote against the legislation for the reason that, if nothing else, the bill provides for a review of the legislation by the Ombudsman after a two-year period of operation. That safety net is very appropriate.

I am concerned that we need to go to this level. Every illegal activity of members of motorcycle gangs could be acted on individually if the police had the necessary resources. I note that the former police Minister is in the Chamber. I respectfully acknowledge that it is difficult to apply all the necessary resources; but something has got out of control. Something has gone off the rails that has led us to the current situation. I am concerned that outlaw groups might form a coalition. They may no longer want to war between themselves but, as a result of a concerted effort by the State against them, they may form a coalition and aggregate their resources and forces against the New South Wales Police Force. The police should not be put in that grave and dangerous situation.

For those reasons I think the bill should be considered further. As the member for Epping said, we should look at legislation that has been applied around the world and take the best components. We should also look at measures that have failed, because we do not want to introduce a measure that has failed in the past. Technology has advanced greatly. I have difficulty understanding how some of these measures will work in practice. The reality is that there are many ways that outlaw groups could get around the law. We know that criminal activities and rackets have been run from jails, let alone by people who voluntarily join outlaw motorcycle gangs. The new legislation will make it an offence for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs to talk to or consort with each other.

Generally, most people are law-abiding citizens. But I doubt whether members of outlaw motorcycle gangs will say, "That legislation is fair. We can't do that any more." The situation will be much more complicated, not only because they cannot consort with or be together physically but also because the technological age has made this difficult to control. The issue raised by the member for Epping about the ability to seize assets is extremely important. I will support the bill because I respect the Government's responsibility in the current situation. However, the legislation has been brought forward capriciously and I have concerns about unforseen problems.

Mr PETER DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [1.02 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009. I have one question for the Minister for Transport, and Minister for the Illawarra, who I understand will respond to this debate, rather than the Premier. Before I ask that question I simply say this to the member for Lake Macquarie: I deeply appreciate that the Government did not take a deep breath and think about the legislation for another few weeks. We have waited about six months for this bill to appear in the Parliament. So good on the Government for bringing it in! Now let us get on with it. The Minister for Planning was mischievous in her contribution to the debate. She tried to attack the Leader of the Opposition and, by implication, attack me for my words. I think she claimed I had previously said, "Just lock them up!" This is Australia; what I actually said was, "Lock the bastards up!"

The problem is the Government did not do that; that is why we have this legislation today. The Government did not give the police the resources and it did not have the political will to back them up. As for the legislation, I simply ask the Minister to answer my question. Clause 27 (6) lists prescribed activities and subclauses (a) to (m) list a range of occupations, from casinos to tow trucks, et cetera, but it does not include the public sector. I assume that is a mistake. The object of the bill is to disrupt and restrict the activities of organisations:

(a) whose members associate for the purpose of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting or engaging in serious criminal activity and that represent a risk to public safety and order in New South Wales.

Once that has been established through the normal process I assume the Government intends that those people will not work for the people of New South Wales as public sector employees. I assume that the bill will be amended in the upper House to include the public sector. I ask the Minister to comment on that matter in his response.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [1.04 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009. We received a copy of the bill at 11.45 a.m. today so I have jotted down only a few notes in haste. About two years ago I remember Premier Iemma recalled Parliament urgently to address the Cronulla riots. That was a response to media reports that made it seem that the Government had to take instant action. At that time I thought the legislation contained loopholes. The new law was then tested when there was a riot on New Year's Day on the Gordon estate in Dubbo, before it was demolished. The law was challenged by a few individuals accused of causing the riot in Dubbo, which involved burning a police car and threatening the wellbeing of two police officers, one of who received damage to his eye. The challenge to the law was successful because it contained loopholes.

I am wary that criminals will hire top lawyers to represent them—they have a lot of money behind them—who will have the nous to get around the law and protect them. No doubt the individuals we are targeting behave idiotically. They need to be taken off our streets and away from the public. However, they are not idiots when it comes to working out loopholes in the law, as I said. In the past we have introduced laws for truancy, but some children are still not attending school. Foster carers have difficult children in their care, and they are now being hit with truancy fines. There will always be individuals who break the law; not everyone is a law-abiding citizen. Most citizens abide by the law, which is tremendous, but there will always be an element that does not give a damn what laws are in place.

In areas that I am aware of, the people being targeted by this legislation are managing prostitution. These people make appointments with a girl from out of town who is doing business at a local motel, and violent incidents occur. They are protecting their prostitution ring in town. We need to clean up the drug trade on the streets. Dealers use young individuals, particularly indigenous people, to sell drugs while the top bosses profit from drug users who are selling drugs to feed their habit. They are feeding on people who cannot stand up for themselves, and they use intimidation as well. People selling drugs to feed their own substance abuse are being arrested but the bigger fish are not being caught.

Earlier today the Minister for Police had a crossbench briefing with the Greens and the Independents, at which he said that in one operation about 900 people have already been charged with more than 2,000 offences. That is great news. Obviously there must be a law in place that enables that to happen. My main concern is whether we need these laws. I support the bill, but I am concerned about police and resources. On the news we see stories of motorcycle gang members travelling in large numbers up and down the highway. Other motorists dare not overtake them or hold them up. Under this bill, it will be illegal to travel in groups. But who will stop them, particularly if they are travelling between Peak Hill and West Wyalong in my electorate, where there are only two traffic police stationed at any one time? If one officer is sick there is only one patrol car. I would not expect that single-man vehicle to stop a gang of 50 people travelling down the road.

The Government said that 75 additional police would be provided to enforce this new law. That is a great idea, but how will 75 police or a larger number help those single-man police patrol vehicles in my area and the local commands, particularly when the police stations at Cowra and Forbes are not open 24 hours a day? There are all sorts of issues. At present, everything is going well: we are well resourced and well manned in terms of police numbers, and there have been no issues in my area of late. However, these gangs are known to visit rural communities. They are often in villages.

There was a case two years ago—I will not name the place because I do not want people not to attend a certain event—of gang members intimidating people. The police had to ask them not to wear their jackets and so on while they were in town. It was good that the gangs did not return last year. I am concerned about the number of police officers who are needed not only in Sydney but in rural communities to deal with gangs who flout the law. The community needs this legislation; gang members must be arrested. But where will the additional 75 specialist community police officers be found? I expect that the House will have to revisit the legislation when judgements are handed down that highlight its discrepancies. We are able to amend legislation in Parliament. I support the bill, but the police will require additional resources.

Mr PETER BESSELING (Port Macquarie) [1.10 p.m.]: I will speak briefly to the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009. The bill was introduced this morning and will be rushed through Parliament today. I note that the community wants to see government take action against criminal activity not only by motorcycle gangs but generally. However, I caution the Government against rushing legislation through the House. Members should have sufficient time to consider legislation that will impact upon their communities. The member for Epping, who is in the Chamber, spoke about justice and fairness in considering this important bill. It is important we get the legislation right the first time so that it does not have to be revisited over and over again, as various matters arise. I am a big fan of working within existing legislation. Too often, we are too quick to move towards legislating as a means of solving all community ills. I caution against rushing legislation through both Houses of Parliament.

I am also concerned about the freedom of association implications of the bill. The High Court of Australia website states that implied rights are the political and civil freedoms that necessarily underlie the actual words of the Constitution but are not themselves expressly stated directly in the Constitution. Since the 1990s, the High Court has discovered rights that are said to be implied by the very structure and textual form of the Constitution. Chief amongst these is an implied right to freedom of communication on political matters. In addition, some protections of civil liberties have resulted from the High Court's zealous attempts to safeguard the independence of, and confidence in, the Federal judiciary. With regard to New South Wales constitutional rights, a notable feature of our system of representative and responsible government is how little of the detail of that system is to be found in the Constitution and how much is left to be filled in by Parliament.

Chief Justice Gleeson in Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission 2004 talked about freedom of association and whether it is implied by the Australian Constitution. In Kruger v Commonwealth, Justices Toohey and Gaudron each recognised an implied constitutional freedom of association. They regarded it as an essential ingredient of political communication and an aspect of freedom of political communication that is protected to the extent necessary for the maintenance of the system of government for which the Constitution provides. Freedom of association is implied by the Constitution, and we must be careful and wary of legislating against certain freedoms of association. I note that division 3 of the bill, Consequences of making of interim control orders and control orders, states:

(5) The following forms of associations are to be disregarded for the purposes of this section in its application to a defendant to whom an interim control order relates if the defendant proves that the association was reasonable in the circumstances:

(a) associations between close family members

I am aware of a number of groups and gangs engaged in criminal activities that have family associations. The murder at Sydney Airport involved criminal gangs and family members so that issue must be examined. I know it is difficult to legislate against but I hope criminal gangs will not exploit that loophole. I believe other measures are available. The Minister for Planning spoke about Operation Ranmore, which has involved the arrest of 903 bikie members and the laying of 2,024 charges since May 2007. It is important to note that we already have laws against people being beaten up, hit with objects and murdered in front of others. However, an incident still occurred at Sydney Airport, with security guards and police on hand. If we are to legislate against criminal gangs we need to make sure that resources are available to deal with their criminal activities.

Criminal activities are not confined to the metropolitan area. They occur also in the Port Macquarie electorate, where there are certainly some criminal motorcycle gangs. I cite a number of news items on that subject. The Port Macquarie News of 20 March 2009 carried a story headlined "Bandido link to assaults" when intimidation occurred in the area. On 18 May 2007 there was a story entitled "Bikie link to firebombing, but owner blames locals" about fire bombings in regional areas. Other headlines included: 11 May 2007, "Tattoo shop blaze leaves lives in ashes"; 27 August 2003, "Stolen money used to pay bikies"; 10 December 2001, "Bandido guilty of drug supply"; and 28 November 2001, "Mutilated body in plastic bags". I do not suggest for one moment that the beautiful electorate of Port Macquarie is a hub of criminal activity; I merely point out that crime is not exclusive to metropolitan areas but occurs in regional areas also. Our regions must be supported with adequate police numbers to deal with crimes as and when they occur, rather than as an afterthought. We must make sure that criminal gangs are not driven out of metropolitan areas into regional areas.

Mr Tim Atherton, who was the Western Australian assistant police commissioner from 1998 to 2005, was heavily involved in drafting the Western Australian legislation that criminalised certain activities of motorcycle gangs in that State. He now lives in the Port Macquarie area and was a valuable resource to me in considering this legislation. In 2001, when Tim was the Western Australian assistant police commissioner, he was interviewed for an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, and said:

there is solid evidence of the bikers linking with long-established and well-known organised crime identities.

Have we underestimated the bikers? Absolutely," he said in an interview with the Herald. "We can't ignore them as just a ragged bunch of part-time criminals." "One of the concerns I have is that we are seeing a loose alignment between some of the outlaw motorcycle gang groups in Western Australia and some of the more established organised crime groups. It would appear they are using the bikers as enforcers and their dirty-work boys."

The article continued:

Mr Atherton said he would not say that the clubs were now the number one threat, but he added that on a recent visit to Canada authorities there had warned him to be vigilant. (In the past five years in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario there have been more than 180 biker-related murders as the Hells Angels and other clubs fight for territory and drug markets.)

"The very clear message given to me by the head of their OMCG task force was, 'don't make the same mistake Canada made we ignored them for too long'."

I have issues with the way that this legislation is being rammed through the House. I would like more time to consider it and more opportunities to examine it within my local community and more broadly. However, I note the need to act. Therefore, I will not oppose this legislation.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [1.20 p.m.]: I acknowledge that the Premier and the Government, and indeed the Opposition and some Independent members, have very serious concerns about violence and criminal activity associated with motorcycle gangs. I share that concern, particularly as much of the gang action involves illegal drug activity in Kings Cross and on Oxford Street in my electorate. I acknowledge also that the community is very concerned about this issue and that effective action has been called for. However, I am most concerned about the process we are witnessing today. This is an incredibly important issue yet the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009 was introduced this morning and we are told that it is going to pass through all stages today.

I point out, particularly to the people in the public gallery, that under the Westminster system the legislative process is significant. Parliament creates the laws that people have to uphold and live by. The British Parliament often takes 18 months to get legislation right. Members of the British Parliament do not often have to race back to Parliament to enact amending legislation because they rushed through the original bill and got it wrong. During a more thoughtful period in this Parliament, in the 1990s when both the Government and the Opposition signed a charter of reform, it was agreed that all legislation would lie on the table for at least five days. It was further agreed that landmark legislation that was of significance to the community would lie on the table for 28 days to enable members to discuss the issues with their communities—the people they have been elected to represent in this place—and to allow time for public debate.

The Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009 is incredibly important legislation. The bill will allow a judge to make a declaration in relation to an organisation and make it an offence for declared members of that organisation to associate with each other. They will face serious consequences if they do so. This bill is about taking action against criminal and violent people, but it is also about establishing whether people are criminals and are associated with criminal activity. I oppose the process that we are witnessing today, and therefore I oppose the bill. The bill should lie on the table for 28 days, over the impending recess, to enable us to consult with our communities and to allow proper public debate to occur.

We are dealing with serious community concerns. Legal experts have questioned the need for these laws—and that issue should be part of the public debate we need to have. I note that the president of the Law Society of New South Wales has asked: Where is the defect in the current laws that means criminals cannot be dealt with? That is a question we should be asking in this place as we are creating new laws relating to criminal activity. We do not have an answer to that question. We have not had public discussion about the issue and Parliament has not debated it adequately because the legislation was introduced only this morning. I am not properly across the legislation; there has not been time for me—or for any member—to do that. I am very disappointed that the Government is rushing this legislation. It is landmark legislation and it should lie on the table for 28 days. I oppose the bill's passage through the House today.

Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [1.24 p.m.]: I offer my qualified support for the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2009. Like the member for Sydney, I am very disappointed at the haste with which this legislation is being pushed through Parliament. I am not sure whether the legislation will meet its objectives in the long term. It could exacerbate the problem by forcing illegal activities further underground, which may make it more difficult for police to gain intelligence and to deal successfully with the problems facing us. In the Daily Telegraph Naomi Toy wrote:

As this war escalated, the politicians and police hierarchy have run with the line that this will not be tolerated - and then continued to do just that. But Sunday's events changed that. Suddenly an extra 75 police were found to crack down on these criminals and NSW Premier Nathan Rees was pledging to introduce legislation by the end of June that would mean certain motorcycle gangs would be "proscribed" - as occurs with terrorist organizations - with bikies liable to jail terms for their memberships.

Mr Rees said that the bashing death was "a new low in the activities of these criminal gangs." "Once, they kept these things between themselves. This has now overlapped into the public domain. That's why we're taking it so seriously; that's why we've moved very swiftly today."

In other words, as long as they kept the killings, the beatings, the drug dealing, the standovers in-house then politicians were happy to let things go. Is that the way we deal with crime in this state? Out of sight out of mind.

I believe many people in the community will view this legislation very much in that light and will consider that the Government and the Opposition are again bidding against each other to see who comes out of it appearing the toughest. Perhaps the more cynical among us will consider that Alex Mitchell hit it on the head when he wrote an article for www.crikey.com.au entitled "NSW police don't have the ticker to tackle bikies". In part, he wrote:

It's all very well introducing the toughest laws in the Commonwealth to combat bikie gang criminality, but who is going to enforce them?

NSW Premier Nathan Rees and Queensland Premier Anna Bligh are lock-stepped in declaring zero tolerance of bikie gangs and proposing laws to make them banned organizations. The problem is that the New South Wales and Queensland coppers are in no position to conduct "war" on bikies or any other form of organized crime.

Both forces have been shredded of experienced officers with the dedication and courage to meet the bikies head-on. Old-style coppering has not been in vogue for the past 10 years and the hard men and women have been shuffled off into early retirement.

While I find Mr Mitchell's criticism of current police officers well and truly exaggerated, there are questions in the wider community as to whether this move is merely for show and whether it can deliver results. While these are comments by journalists who may or may not have personal axes to grind, a substantial number of academics believe the legislation is flawed and that it may raise more issues than it resolves. Civil libertarians, including the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties and the Law Society of New South Wales, fear the legislation could give police and politicians the power to curtail the activities of protest groups. The President of the Law Society of New South Wales, Joe Catanzariti, has said that the proposed laws could end up targeting sporting, ethnic and religious groups. He said:

No one applauds what has been happening but this is unusual hysteria - an over-reaction.

On ABC radio Dr Michael Kennedy, a senior lecturer at the School of Social Sciences at the University of Western Sydney, said:

When you're dealing with some tough people such as organised crime identities, or bikies that have already done substantial jail time, this sort of rhetoric just doesn't make any difference at all.

He believes the current gang problems have more to do with politics than policing. He states:

The problem with modern policing is everything has to be measured and if you start an operation, say a long-term operation on a bikie group, I have got no doubt that someone from the Premier's office or the Commissioner's office, or more importantly the Police Minister's office, within six months will be jumping up and down wanting to know, have you got any runs on the board? Have you made any arrests? And then police have to stop what they're doing, run out, make a few trivial arrests, just to keep some bureaucrat happy.

He went on to say:

Long term investigations usually take two or three years. That's how long it took when I was in the organised crime area to do substantial investigations so that you could get good evidence together, that could drive a wedge into some of these groups and so that their activities were slowed down or better managed.

I think he put his finger on the pulse when he said:

You've got to stop making this like a Billy Graham crusade, where you're trying to convert all of the bikies to become normal members of society. These arguments are strictly economic. If you make it clear to them, if they don't stop this, that they're going to have their assets, they're going to have their bikes seized, they're going to have their colours seized, you strip them of their identity and they don't exist. And they understand the politics of that.

In the Australian a criminal law expert, Andreas Schloenhardt, an associate professor of law at the University of Queensland, was reported as saying that the Government was fooling itself if it believed the new laws would bring an end to bikie violence in New South Wales. He pointed out:

These groups will relocate across the border to another State, they will shave off their beards and put their Harley Davidsons away for a while.

He really starts to get to the root of the problem when he says:

This won't stop what is most important to these people, the money they make by buying drugs and selling them.

Phillip Adams reported on ABC Radio National's Late Night Live that last month the Wall Street Journal ran a story where three former presidents of Brazil, Columbia and Mexico wrote that the war on drugs is a failure. Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalisation simply have not worked and the alarming power of the drug cartels is leading to a criminalisation of politics and a politicisation of crime. We must take steps to prevent this from happening in New South Wales. If we are serious about eroding the power of bikie gangs we should be removing the source of much of their wealth and industry: the drugs trade.

The greatest difficulty we face is prosecuting the key directors and leaders of these gangs, the people that do not actually carry out the dirty work, that oversee many of the operations, that are involved in the planning, but who remain largely immune to prosecution. Will these laws get to these people? What we really need to do is use legislation already in place to target their finances, rather than simply outlawing all gangs and having the problem go further underground, making it harder for police to deal with. Paul Wilson from Bond University believes that police should take full advantage of the powers they already have before anyone thinks about new legislation. He believes that the police, particularly the intelligence agencies, have been caught napping and that there has not been particularly good coordination between the forces. He stated:

You don't throw more legislation at a problem just because you've been unsuccessful in the past at dealing with the problem. It may well be you've been unsuccessful because you haven't had a commitment on the part of law enforcement agencies.

Criminologist Professor Mark Findlay from Sydney University sounded a note of caution, saying:

What we tend to see amongst State legislatures is snatching up an idea from one jurisdiction and trying to prove that we're tougher than the next.

He said that police powers in New South Wales have massively increased in the last decade or so and one could argue that there is more than enough opportunity for police to intervene if they need to, while at the same time we do not find the police screaming out for additional powers. He continued that what the police quite realistically appreciate is the need for much better intelligence. The professor pointed out that the approach of banning bikie gangs outright has already failed in Canada. He pointed out that in some situations they have attempted to drive both the legitimate and illegitimate groups like this underground, which can generate a serious problem for the police when they are trying to maintain useful intelligence.

Jim McGinty, a former Labor Western Australian Attorney General, was the architect of Western Australia's anti-bikie laws. He has warned other States that they could be on the wrong path with the laws they have proposed to stop gang violence after Western Australia introduced a range of anti-bikie laws in response to an outbreak of bikie violence earlier this decade. He says the only way to punish outlaw motorcycle gangs is to go after their money. He said:

Firstly, [we must] provide police with the power to remove the fortification around bikie headquarters, secondly, give to our corruption commission the power to pull in people associated with organised crime—we're thinking here particularly of bikie gangs—to require them to testify, to tell what had happened under pain of imprisonment.

He is sceptical about how effective the laws are, saying:

The message from the Western Australian experience is that toughening the law is fine at a political, rhetorical level when you're doing it. It is a question then of whether the laws will be used, and whether they will be effective. Our experience in Western Australia has shown that they haven't been used and therefore have not been effective.

Jim McGinty goes on to say:

To ban people from committing crimes is fine. To ban them from being part of an organised crime outfit is what the public would expect politicians to do. To go down the path, as was done in the Cold War to ban the Communist Party, to now ban outlaw motorcycle gangs; I doubt whether it's the right thing to do and I doubt whether it will be effective.

Across the board, academics, civil libertarians, politicians, journalists, police and former police are warning that we should be wary of knee-jerk reactions that may cause greater problems than we currently face. These are issues that need to be dealt with, but I question whether this rushed response is the answer. Certainly the problem is much bigger than a group of bikies having a brawl at Sydney airport. Some have suggested that the knee-jerk reaction is more a response to protecting Sydney's image than tackling the much bigger question of organised crime. In 2006 new laws enabled the prosecution of anyone who was part of a criminal gang. But of the 164 people charged, only 23 have been members of outlaw motorcycle gangs and only half of them have been convicted. Perhaps the answer, rather than introducing these laws that may in future impact on civil liberties in an unintended manner, is better investment in police resources that allows them to use the laws already in place to deal with these issues. As I said, I do not oppose this legislation, but wonder whether it provides the solutions the community is looking for.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Transport, and Minister for the Illawarra) [1.35 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. An important part of the process of legislation is to ensure that as many people as possible in this place, as time permits, have the opportunity to contribute. I note the Opposition's intention to support the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Bill, but I cannot help but point out the conflict between the shadow Attorney General and the Leader of the Opposition—again a demonstration of conflict on the other side. The shadow Attorney General has spent a lot of time whinging, whining and complaining that he did not have enough time to look at this and it was all a rush. I will quote some of what his leader has been saying. On 29 March the Leader of the Opposition said on 2UE radio:

It's important that it quickly equip police with the powers needed to not just lock up the bikie gang members, but to smash these criminal bikie gangs once and for all.

That is what the Leader of the Opposition said while the Attorney General was whinging, whining and complaining that there was not enough time. As late as this morning on the Hadley program on 2GB the Leader of the Opposition said, "It can only be today we are happy to support it." Again the conflict, dissent and disagreement on that side of the House is very much evident in the debate we have heard today. The New South Wales Opposition is the biggest critic of the New South Wales Police Force. Once again, we saw a slur against the police officers of New South Wales by the shadow Attorney General. That was one part of his contribution.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! I call the member for Epping to order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: What we have also seen from the Opposition is public calls for the South Australian model to be lifted and put into New South Wales. What the Government has done through a collegiate approach is ensure that we have a stronger bill in New South Wales than that in South Australia. It is stronger and more resistant to challenge than what the Opposition has been publicly calling for. I think it is important to point out that the shadow Attorney General wants a member of Parliament to make the declaration of which gang—

Mr Greg Smith: The Attorney General.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Attorney General was a member of Parliament the last time I checked. The Opposition would have a member of Parliament make that declaration. What the Government wants, and what the Opposition subsequently will support, is that a Supreme Court judge will make that declaration and also make the orders. As a former police Minister, I want to highlight the success that Strike Force Raptor has already had in cracking down on outlaw gangs. Strike Force Raptor has built on the success of previous police operations and brought the dedicated efforts of 125 police officers to bear on criminal gangs. Raptor follows on from Operation Ranmore, which resulted in nearly 900 arrests and 2,000 charges against individual members of outlaw gangs.

The Premier has also announced Reference Leeton, bringing the powers of the New South Wales Crime Commission upon criminal gangs. Just yesterday police conducted a raid on a Rockdale unit, where they arrested a member of the Rebels outlaw gang and seized a pistol, shortened pump-action shotgun, a rifle scope, large quantities of ammunition, a pistol holder and steroids. A 36-year-old man has been charged with firearm offences, including possessing an unauthorised firearm, possession of a shortened firearm, possess ammunition, not keep safe a prohibited firearm, not keep safe a pistol, possess prescribed restricted substance as well as three counts of possessing a steroidal agent, and carrying a cutting weapon. He is just one member who has been arrested so far. In fact, 12 members of various outlaw gangs have been arrested since that shocking incident at Sydney airport.

The Leader of the Opposition said a range of things in his contribution. I actually agree with something he said: that this is not just something that happens in the centre of Sydney. These gangs operate around the city and in the suburbs. We heard from the member for Port Macquarie that, notwithstanding what a great place it is, his electorate is experiencing bikie gang activity. As a resident and representative of the Illawarra, I am aware of the involvement of outlaw motorcycle gangs in illegal activities in that region and the effort the police have made that has resulted in some arrests. I am confident that other members of this place from the Illawarra would have joined me if they had had the opportunity in saying that this legislation provides a balance and sets an agenda that police can pursue to get on with the job across New South Wales, and certainly in the Illawarra.

This bill not only strikes the right balance but also gives the police the powers they need to break up outlaw motorcycle gangs. It will enable authorities to have gangs declared criminal organisations following an application to an eligible judge of the Supreme Court. It will also allow the Supreme Court to issue control orders in respect of gang members. Much has been said in this debate about the existing laws. I have pointed out how Operation Raptor and Operation Ranmore officers have been using those laws against individuals. However, as every member who has contributed to this debate knows, because of intimidation by the gangs no-one will give evidence notwithstanding that the police have made an arrest or have a view as to who may have committed a crime.

I see the member for Epping nodding and I am sure he agrees with me. He probably would have achieved better outcomes in a previous life if some people had given evidence. That goes to the heart of what this bill is about—disrupting gang activity. Existing legislation can continue to be applied to individuals; this is about disrupting gang activity and striking at the heart of the intimidation that binds these people together. That is why I strongly support it. This bill will make it an offence for gang members to associate together with up to two years jail for the first offence and five years for every subsequent offence. These laws will be the toughest in the country and provide no second chance for members caught associating with each other. The bill will help police officers to take criminals off the street and the offence will have no presumption in favour of bail.

The bill will ensure that declared gang members cannot be licensed to work in a range of high-risk industries. This brings me to the contribution made by the member for Vaucluse. The member referred to clause 27 (6). I know he did not misinterpret it, because I have more confidence in him than that. However, he did misrepresent the intent of the subclause. It deals with those industries in which people need a specific licence; for example, the tow truck industry or the security industry. Paragraph (m) deals with other activities to be prescribed by regulation. I am sure the member was not misinterpreting it, but he was misrepresenting it for his own political ends.

Mr Peter Debnam: Point of order: I would like to clarify whether the Minister is saying that the Government will actually do it?

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Members should make no mistake: This Government will not let outlaw bikies peddle their intimidation and thuggery in industries that are vulnerable to outlaw infiltration. The police know that gangs can use the tow truck and motor repair industries to assist in car rebirthing and the second-hand goods industry to move stolen property. Gang members will also be sent a message that crime does not pay because the law has been strengthened to seize their assets. The Government will also expand the grounds in the criminal asset recovery laws to allow action to be taken to seize the assets of those who participate in a criminal group regardless of whether it has been declared a criminal organisation by the court. Discussions will also be occurring with the Commonwealth about enabling greater use of telecommunications intercepts.

I remind members that these laws have safeguards. Supreme Court judges will make key decisions, the Attorney General will need to be notified of applications by the police commissioner, individuals will have a right of appearance where practical and appropriate, and allowance can be made in control orders if the member can show good reasons for association, including relationships between close family members. The bill is also subject to an Ombudsman's review in two years. These laws are the toughest in the country and there will be no second chances. They will give the police the power to ensure that crime does not pay. They also strike the right balance because no-one wants police work undermined by legislation being attacked in the courts. That is why the Government sought the advice of the Solicitor General earlier this week. Agencies were working on these laws prior to the incident at Sydney airport. This bill will give the police the powers they need to take the fight to outlaw motorcycle gangs. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.

Question declared resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

[The Speaker left the chair at 1.50 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]