Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The object of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Bill 2006 is to introduce a range of new offences and enhanced penalties to tackle gang crime. The Christian Democratic Party has looked into this quite closely and I indicate that it will support the passage of this legislation. We can all agree that we want to live in a peaceful and democratic society where citizens have regard to the rights of, and exercise their responsibilities to, one another.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: Madam Deputy-President, I feel honoured to be speaking during what may be your last occupation of the chair. I wish you well for the future. Before question time I was saying that the object of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Gangs) Bill is to introduce a range of new offences and enhanced penalties to tackle gang crime. We all agree that we want to live in a peaceful and democratic society where citizens have regard to the rights of, and exercise responsibilities towards, one another.
As Australians, most of us strive to live in harmony and in a peaceable fashion. This is what makes our nation such an outstanding place to live. However, it is with great dismay that certain individuals and groups within Australia of ours do not aspire to such notions. There are countless reasons why groups and individuals seek to enact violence on other people. It may be because they are consumed by greed, fed by thoughts of retribution or revenge or enlivened by the prospect of gaining power over others. This was evidenced in the Cronulla area last year and also in the Macquarie Fields riots, where people became embroiled in violence and succumbed to a mob mentality. These riots brought to our attention the potential for wanton disregard for the rights of others and showed a darker side of humanity, one that we would all prefer to forget.
Some gangs manage to attract others of the same ethnicity. For example, we have all known of Chinese triads, Vietnamese gangs and, regretfully, Pacific Islander gangs, which have increased in number in recent times, and gangs of people with Middle Eastern appearance. We have discovered that these gangs become heavily involved in the trade in firearms, in drug manufacturing and selling, facilitating the distribution of drugs within the community, car rebirthing and a host of other things. In more recent times hotel and nightclub security companies have been developed by gangs as a way of laundering money they have obtained from other areas. There is quite an amount of evidence concerning smash repair services and other such activities.
Further, these gangs demonstrate that strength exists in numbers. Gangs and mobs depend on their size to intimidate others. The legislation before us conveys the message that involvement in such groups will not be tolerated. Clearly, this House must support this purpose. The bill also, more specifically, seeks to reform legislation dealing with gang crime. Most significantly, the new offences introduced by this bill constitute Australia’s first criminal organisation offences. Under this proposed legislation courts will be able to consider cases where criminal groups are involved or where persons participate in criminal groups. By and large, heavy penalties will apply to offences arising in this context. It was stated in the second reading speech in the Legislative Assembly:
The bill recognises that crimes committed by gangs, whether they be crimes of violence, revenge attacks, systematic property damage, organised motor vehicle theft, protection rackets, armed robberies or the drug and gun trade, are a far greater threat to the safety and wellbeing of the community than most crimes committed by individuals acting alone.
This is true. But it is also true that acts committed by individuals on individuals demoralise victims and, inevitably, the community surrounding that victim. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1900 and the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. Incidental amendments are also made to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Local Courts Act 1982. A number of offences are introduced to the Crimes Act by this bill and I will endeavour to point out the more salient ones. Part 3E is introduced to create new offences relating to participation in criminal groups. Importantly, “criminal group” is defined as a group of three or more people who have as their objective one of the following objectives: obtaining material benefits from conduct that constitutes a serious indictable offence, or obtaining material benefits from conduct engaged in outside New South Wales—including outside Australia—that, if it occurred in New South Wales, would constitute a serious indictable offence, or committing serious violence offences, or engaging in conduct outside New South Wales—including outside Australia—that, if it occurred in New South Wales, would constitute a serious violence offence.
It is not entirely clear what is meant by material benefits, but commonsense dictates that monetary or financial benefits would be central here. Of great interest is the possibility that gang rapists could also come under the term of criminal group, especially in view of the Bilal Skaf and K trials that shocked many across this country. Involvement in such gang rapes could then be dealt with on a joint and severable basis.
The bill introduces proposed section 931K subtitled “Participation in criminal groups”. It provides that a person who participates in a criminal group knowing that it is a criminal group and knowing, or being reckless as to whether, his or her participation in that group contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity, will be guilty of an offence. A maximum penalty of five years applies to anyone found guilty of this offence. Clearly, the breadth of the wording of this offence is deliberate. The act of participating in a criminal group would capture someone who is involved on an incidental basis in this group to, more obviously, the ringleader of the group. It would seem that the degree to which a person participates would be reflected in the degree to which they are sentenced to imprisonment.
The bill does not, however, explicitly address the implications arising from being a leader of a criminal group. In the corporate world a hierarchy exists between chairmen, directors, company secretaries and other office bearers, and the same exists within the criminal realm. Some recognition should be given to these distinctions.
I also refer honourable members to the comments of the Legislation Review Committee in this context, based on the fact that the meaning of “participate” in proposed section 931K is unclear. Other amendments under the section 931K framework recognise the role of law enforcement officers in our communities, thus heavy penalties are attached to offences against those officers. For example, under the bill assault of a law enforcement officer will include throwing missiles at an officer. An attack on police, the vanguards of public safety, is a blight on the health of our society and must be strictly sanctioned. We all have vivid images in our minds of the riots in Redfern and other places, where the police stood with great patience and dignity while they were attacked with flaming bottles filled with petrol and other inflammable liquids thrown by scores of young rioting criminals. Another amendment creates new, aggravated offences in relation to various crimes involving assault or damage to property where the assault or damage occurred during a public disorder.
The bill makes a number of amendments to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The central purpose of these amendments is to increase police powers and penalties attached to offences that arise in the gang violence context. For example, the bill increases from two years to five the maximum penalty for offences involving obtaining personal information about law enforcement officers or members of their families. The bill also expands the powers of police to deal with aspects of gang violence and crime. For example, police will be given additional powers with respect to entering and searching crime premises, the removal of alarms, surveillance devices and the like, and the blocking of drains—in case those inside seek to flush away evidence. Police will be able to seek court orders to remove unnecessary fortifications to crime gang premises. We have all seen pictures of motorbike gang premises surrounded by high tensile steel walls to keep other gangs, as well as police, at bay.
More controversially, the police will be given additional powers to disperse groups during public disorders. The section proposed will allow a police officer to give a direction to a group of people to disperse immediately. Certain prerequisites must be satisfied however. First, the police officer giving the direction must inform the persons to whom the direction is given that an authorisation has been given for the direction under the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005. Second, the police officer must warn those persons that a refusal or failure to comply with the direction may be an offence. Failure to comply without a reasonable excuse will constitute an offence. That provision is very similar to the old “reading the Riot Act”. It is recognised that people have the right to peaceful assembly under international and also common law. Notably, and as indicated by the Legislation Review Committee, there is a threat in these kinds of scenarios that people not involved in riots or any kind of protest will be subject to these powers.
Debate in relation to the merits of such powers ensued last year when the Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Act 2005 was brought before the House. It is imperative that appropriate safeguards are in place to warrant against the inappropriate use of these powers. As with any legal measure, it is important that concerns attached to the outworking of legislation are discussed and allayed. It is in this vein that I mention the work of the Legislation Review Committee, and its concerns with aspects of this legislation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the concerns expressed by that committee. None of us wishes to see this legislation triggered by another spontaneous or even preconceived riot. It is a sad reality, however, that the past is a predictor of the future. Hopefully, we will be better prepared to tackle these incidents through the passage of this bill. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.