Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to restrict and disrupt the activities of persons and organisations engaged in serious criminal activity, whether it be inside or outside the Territory. The objective of this is to protect members of the public from violence associated with these persons and organisations. To achieve this objective, the bill provides for the making of declarations about organisations, control orders, public safety orders, and fortification removal orders. These actions are designed to disrupt and restrict the activities of organised criminals engaged in serious crime. The bill clearly sets out that it is not intended for the powers provided in the legislation to be used in a manner that would diminish the freedom of people in the Northern Territory to participate in advocacy, protest, dissent, or industrial action. The bill does not impinge upon this basic freedom and right of society. Rather, the bill is intended to restrict and disrupt the activities of persons and organisations who are engaged in serious criminal activity. Such activity, ultimately, harms members of the public. This bill protects members of the public from this activity. Police are aware that organisations in the Territory are involved in drug trafficking. Organisations have also interfered with witnesses and juries, thereby diminishing our criminal justice system. The Northern Territory is home to a small number of motorcycle gang members who generally belong to chapters of large interstate groups. Nevertheless, Northern Territory police have expressed the view that their membership is significant and has effects beyond what their numbers might suggest. Police intelligence in other jurisdictions indicates that some outlaw motorcycle gang members are involved in criminal activities, including murder; drug manufacture; drug importation and distribution; fraud; blackmail; intimidation of witnesses; serious assaults; organised theft; and re-identification of motor vehicles and motorcycles; public disorder offences; firearm offences; and, money laundering. These gangs operate criminal organisations which vary in expertise, sophistication and influence. Recently, in other jurisdictions, we have seen significant risk to public safety due to violent incidents, where it is suspected that motorcycle gang members and their associates have been involved. There is concern that these outlaw gangs have the potential to increasingly infiltrate society and use legitimate industries to camouflage criminal activity from law enforcement. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed now. Indeed, the issue of serious criminal organisations was included as an item on the agendas for recent meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the Ministerial Council on Corporations, and, the Council of Australian Governments. Whilst outlaw gangs are targeted by this legislation, the measures contained in the bill also extend to other criminals who engage in serious criminal activity, but are not necessarily members of the outlaw gangs. The bill complements existing Northern Territory laws and anti-gang policing, further enhancing the capacity for law enforcement to do their job. The Criminal Property Forfeiture Act already operates in the Northern Territory and has been commended nationally for its ability to hit organised criminals where it hurts. That act provides for forfeiture of property to the Northern Territory when it has been acquired as a result of criminal activity, used for criminal activity, or is unexplained wealth. Since the commencement on 1 June 2003, through to June 2008, over $11m has been restrained. Much of this was restrained as a result of motorcycle gang-related activity. Similar legislation to this bill was enacted in both South Australia and New South Wales, following a rapid increase in the number of organised criminal motorcycle gangs operating and the severity of gang-related crime and violence. The legislation aims to force these gangs apart. If interstate gangs relocate to the Northern Territory as a result of the tough stance taken in South Australia and New South Wales, it could be expected that illegal operations and violence would increase here. We are taking steps to ensure that the Northern Territory is not faced with similar problems. The bill aims to make the Northern Territory less attractive to these organisations by making it much harder for them to do business here. Adopting some elements of the South Australian and New South Wales reforms not already in place in the Northern Territory may also assist to prevent interstate gangs relocating to the Territory. I will now set out key features of this bill. The bill will enable any consenting Supreme Court judge to be declared an eligible judge by the Attorney-General. The bill authorises an eligible judge to declare an organisation to be a declared organisation under the act if the eligible judge is satisfied the organisation meets specific criteria. This includes that the members of the organisation associate for the purposes of organising, planning, facilitating, supporting, or engaging in serious criminal activity, and that the organisation represents a risk to public safety and order. Decisions by eligible judges in making declarations are not decisions of the Supreme Court. The structure of the legislation is designed to avoid potential constitutional problems arising through application of the High Court’s decision in Cable v Director of Public Prosecutions, New South Wales 1966 HCA 24. The eligible judge may make a declaration based on the material provided by the Commissioner of Police. The eligible judge can also refuse to make the application based only on the material provided by police. However, the eligible judge may also ensure that there is a hearing of the application, and that the organisation and persons affected by the application are given a right to be heard. If a declaration is made, the organisation and persons potentially affected by such a declaration may seek a revocation of the application. For most situations the eligible judge who dealt with the original application would also deal with an application for revocation. The Commissioner of Police is also entitled to seek revocation. A declaration of an organisation has no immediate consequences. That is, the organisation continues in existence with its operations being unaffected until such time as its members become a subject of a control order made by the Supreme Court. The bill enables the Commissioner of Police to apply to the Supreme Court for “control orders” against members of declared organisations and also for other persons who have, or have had, various kinds of associations with a declared organisation. A control order will operate to prohibit the control person from doing, or possessing certain things, and associating with other controlled members. Such association will constitute an offence, punishable by a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. A control order automatically suspends any authorisation, licence, registration, certification or approval to carry on a prescribed activity that is held by a controlled member. These prescribed activities include, among other things: · operating a casino, or being a licensed employee; · being a crowd controller, security officer, or operating a business as a security provider; · carrying on the business of a credit provider, pawnbroker, or second hand dealer; · possessing or using a firearm within the meaning of the Firearms Act, or carrying on business as a firearms dealer; · carrying out the activities required to be registered or licensed under the Racing and Betting Act; or · any other activity prescribed by the regulations. A control order may also prohibit a person from applying for an authorisation to carry on a prescribed activity whilst a control order is enforced. A breach of this provision will attract a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or six months imprisonment. The court may make control orders in relation to a person who is, or has been, a member of a particular declared organisation who engages, or has engaged in serious criminal activity and regularly associates with members of a particular declared organisation. Control orders can also be made in respect of other persons who engage, or have been engaged, in serious criminal activity. A control order takes effect immediately when the control order is made in court, provided that the person to whom it relates, is present in court. If a person is not in the court, the control order takes effect when the person is served a copy of the order. It will then remain enforce until it is revoked in accordance with clause 34 of the bill. The terms of a control order can also be varied by the court. A right of appeal against the making of a control order on a question of law or fact is available to the parties. It will also be an offence for a controlled member of a declared organisation to recruit new members to the organisation. This offence will attract a five year imprisonment penalty. The bill sets out various broad grounds on which a control order can be made. One of these is that a person has been a member of a declared organisation. This power is designed to ensure that a person can not escape the control order provisions by simply ceasing his or her membership. However, the court is entitled to only make a control order if the circumstances are appropriate for the making of the control order. Thus, for example, if a “past member” can show that this status is not artificial the court may find that it is not appropriate for the person to be made subject to a control order. Another example is that of a vulnerable person. It may be preferable that they be committed to associate with people who will look after them. The bill will also authorise senior police officers to issue time-limited “public safety orders” against persons prohibiting them from attending a public event, or place, or being within a specified area on grounds of public safety. Public safety orders may be made if the senior police officer is satisfied that the person being present at premises poses a serious risk to public safety or security and the making of the order is appropriate in the circumstances. Police will be required to consider several factors in determining whether a public safety order is necessary and warranted. Some of these include: · whether the person has previously behaved in a way that posed a serious risk to public safety or security; or · whether the person has a history of engaging in serious criminal activity; · whether the person is or has been or associates or has associated with a member of a declared organisation or a controlled member. The bill includes provisions which will allow for fortification removal orders to be obtained against premises that are owned, occupied or habitually used by members of a declared organisation. A fortification removal order may be made in relation to premises if the premises are fortified and there are reasonable grounds to believe the premises are, have been, or are likely to be used for or in connection with the commission of a serious criminal offence; or to conceal evidence or keep proceeds in connection to a serious criminal offence. There is an offence of hindering the removal or modification of fortifications which will attract a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units or three years imprisonment. The bill also provides for matters relating to procedure for service of documents, including an order which may be obtained for substituted service. These provisions address difficulties experienced by police when attempting to serve documents on members of criminal organisations. The bill ensures that certain persons carrying out functions or exercising powers contained in the bill will not be held civilly or criminally liable provided that the powers exercised in good faith. The bill also makes clear that any decision, determination, declaration or order made under the bill or an act or omission relating to an exercise of functions under the bill, are protected from proceedings for judicial review or for a declaration in junction, writ, order or other remedy. The bill does not affect the operation of the Police Administration Act concerning claims which may be made against the police. The bill expands on existing offences in the Criminal Code to include serious penalties for the making of threats or reprisals to persons involved in criminal investigations or judicial proceedings or to public officers in the performance of his or her official duties or functions. These new offences will attract a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. The bill also amends the Bail Act to provide for the presumption against bail for a person charged with contravening a control order, associating with another controlled person; recruiting a person to become a member of a declared organisation, applying for an authority in contravention of a control order, or contravening a public safety order. Finally, the bill will amend the Information Act to ensure that information classified as criminal intelligence by the Commissioner of Police under the bill is exempt from disclosure under Section 44 of that act. The bill will require an annual review by a retired judicial officer of the powers exercised under the bill to ensure these powers are exercised in an appropriate manner having regard to the objects of the bill. The operation and effectiveness of the legislation will be reviewed after it has been in operation for four years. A report based on the review is required to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly. Madam Speaker, this government is tough on crime. Criminal organisations and their members and associates are serious concerns. This bill contains robust measures to disrupt and restrict the activities of those criminal organisations. The bill conveys new powers and responsibilities to the Commissioner of Police, other senior police officers and the members of the Supreme Court to perform the role of allegeable judges and the courts. We are making sure that these officers have the capacity to deal with organised crime including the seeds of organised crime in a comprehensive manner. However, this bill also contains checks and balances to ensure these powers are used appropriately and responsibly in targeting these serious outlaw gangs and criminals. I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the Explanatory Statement. Debate adjourned. |