Christian Porter
Source: au.news.yahoo.com
In 2009 after an exceptionally violent brawl at Sydney Airport involving members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, there was a sequence of events which mimics responses in Canada, Norway and almost every country with a history of bikie gang activity.
In response to public outcry, governments in various jurisdictions indicated their commitment to laws to disrupt and target organised crime.
Those laws have generally involved parliaments creating a power to, after stringent investigations, have organisations declared criminal groups and then targeting members' capacity to associate.
This is because it is the association, whether to plan and conduct criminal activity, promote their organisation or simply intimidate members of the public, which is fundamental to the way such groups operate.
With the pendulum of public opinion swinging against them, the various OMCGs send out spokespeople who can best combine the attributes of being non-threatening and at least moderately articulate.
In this sense, the OMCGs send out representatives who are not particularly representative of the true membership base to push lines which would almost be humorous if the activities which they are used to disguise were not so serious.
"Just a group of mates who go out riding together"; "If they ban us, the RSL will be next"; "Sure some of us commit crimes, that's the same as any group of people."
These statements are usually aligned with a photo opportunity at their clubhouse, supportive comments from the organisation's defence lawyers and an academic or activist suggesting that such laws will involve some vague or unspecified threat to general civil liberties.
Or, most extraordinarily after the 2009 brawl, a claim that governments should not attempt to outlaw such organisations because this might lead to those groups engaging in even more violence.
However, while intense media coverage moves on, the core business of organised crime continues until the next seizure of a significant quantity of drugs, the next inter-gang dispute, the next finding of weapons or explosives, or, most disturbingly, the next incidence of violence against members of the public.
In 2009 after discussions on this issue with the other States, the WA Government committed to developing laws to prevent people from a declared criminal organisation associating together and which specifically target and penalise the organised criminal activity of members.
At that time, a decision was taken to wait for two separate High Court decisions to provide guidance about the most constitutionally valid approach to organised crime. This delay has been frustrating but has been necessary to ensure that the laws we introduce will be valid and workable.
The most recent of these decisions was handed down last week.
Although the High Court found that the model the NSW Government sought to employ was constitutionally problematic, importantly it also found that there is nothing constitutionally or legally objectionable about the underlying object of these laws.
That object is restricting the freedom of association of persons involved in organised crime and the court gave important guidance about how this object can be achieved.
The way is now clear for the WA Government to proceed with its laws and we will do so as a matter of absolute priority.
Simply put, the Government's sole and primary objective with these laws will be to use every legislative means available to ensure the police and courts are legally equipped to disrupt organised crime networks, fill our jails with people who engage in organised crime and confiscate their property to the point where it will not be profitable for these organisations to openly exist in WA.
When details of these laws are announced, no doubt the same concerns will be raised as when the Liberal- National Government first indicated our commitment to this approach and the same OMCG public relations exercise will commence afresh.
But all criminal law involves a balancing act between individual civil liberties and the public interest in ensuring that criminal activity is deterred and properly punished, and governments are elected to strike that balance.
This Government is absolutely committed to these laws because we consider that the public interest demands that people who associate for the purposes of engaging in violence, intimidation and organised criminal activity are disrupted, imprisoned, stripped of their property and forced out of this jurisdiction.
We intend to pursue these goals with every legislative and administrative means at our disposal.
Christian Porter is WA Attorney-General.
In response to public outcry, governments in various jurisdictions indicated their commitment to laws to disrupt and target organised crime.
Those laws have generally involved parliaments creating a power to, after stringent investigations, have organisations declared criminal groups and then targeting members' capacity to associate.
This is because it is the association, whether to plan and conduct criminal activity, promote their organisation or simply intimidate members of the public, which is fundamental to the way such groups operate.
With the pendulum of public opinion swinging against them, the various OMCGs send out spokespeople who can best combine the attributes of being non-threatening and at least moderately articulate.
In this sense, the OMCGs send out representatives who are not particularly representative of the true membership base to push lines which would almost be humorous if the activities which they are used to disguise were not so serious.
"Just a group of mates who go out riding together"; "If they ban us, the RSL will be next"; "Sure some of us commit crimes, that's the same as any group of people."
These statements are usually aligned with a photo opportunity at their clubhouse, supportive comments from the organisation's defence lawyers and an academic or activist suggesting that such laws will involve some vague or unspecified threat to general civil liberties.
Or, most extraordinarily after the 2009 brawl, a claim that governments should not attempt to outlaw such organisations because this might lead to those groups engaging in even more violence.
However, while intense media coverage moves on, the core business of organised crime continues until the next seizure of a significant quantity of drugs, the next inter-gang dispute, the next finding of weapons or explosives, or, most disturbingly, the next incidence of violence against members of the public.
In 2009 after discussions on this issue with the other States, the WA Government committed to developing laws to prevent people from a declared criminal organisation associating together and which specifically target and penalise the organised criminal activity of members.
At that time, a decision was taken to wait for two separate High Court decisions to provide guidance about the most constitutionally valid approach to organised crime. This delay has been frustrating but has been necessary to ensure that the laws we introduce will be valid and workable.
The most recent of these decisions was handed down last week.
Although the High Court found that the model the NSW Government sought to employ was constitutionally problematic, importantly it also found that there is nothing constitutionally or legally objectionable about the underlying object of these laws.
That object is restricting the freedom of association of persons involved in organised crime and the court gave important guidance about how this object can be achieved.
The way is now clear for the WA Government to proceed with its laws and we will do so as a matter of absolute priority.
Simply put, the Government's sole and primary objective with these laws will be to use every legislative means available to ensure the police and courts are legally equipped to disrupt organised crime networks, fill our jails with people who engage in organised crime and confiscate their property to the point where it will not be profitable for these organisations to openly exist in WA.
When details of these laws are announced, no doubt the same concerns will be raised as when the Liberal- National Government first indicated our commitment to this approach and the same OMCG public relations exercise will commence afresh.
But all criminal law involves a balancing act between individual civil liberties and the public interest in ensuring that criminal activity is deterred and properly punished, and governments are elected to strike that balance.
This Government is absolutely committed to these laws because we consider that the public interest demands that people who associate for the purposes of engaging in violence, intimidation and organised criminal activity are disrupted, imprisoned, stripped of their property and forced out of this jurisdiction.
We intend to pursue these goals with every legislative and administrative means at our disposal.
Christian Porter is WA Attorney-General.
