Skip to content

gangbusters

13 June, 2012
by

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: […] Arguably, we might be looking at an organisation which, although it consisted of quite a number, may have fallen into unpopularity amongst its peers and has dropped to below three for some reason but which is looking at recruiting extras in the future. It is wise to ensure that that does not happen, in pre-empting that. It allows for certain flexibility. There may be a way of specifying numbers and eliminating the doubt, but at the moment the government is content with the way it is. As far as I am aware, there is no proposed amendment to refine that.

Hon GIZ WATSON: Again for clarification, I think what I hear the parliamentary secretary say is that a “group” could be defined, in the context of this definition of “organisation”, as two people.

Hon Michael Mischin: It could say “consists of two or more persons” or “three or more persons”.

Hon GIZ WATSON: Yes. As stated in the second reading speech, this is about smashing gangs. I would have thought it had achieved its aim once there were only two members left!

Hon Michael Mischin: Hopefully it would, but we also would not want them to be reconstituted.

Subject: Criminal Organisations Control Bill 2011 [Legislative Council – Committee]

Date: 3 May 2012

Hansard reference: pp. 2288-2289 [online (pdf)]

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: