POLICE soon will have the power to "squash" bikie gangs and force them to move elsewhere after the Government's controversial anti-bikie legislation passed through Parliament tonight.

Police Minister Paul Holloway said SA was on the verge of having the nation's and perhaps the world's toughest anti-bikie laws.
"These are the laws that police have asked for and, finally, we are able to ensure police have exactly what they need to take on these criminal bikie gangs," he said.

When the laws are gazetted, it will be illegal for anyone to associate with known bikies six or more times a year.

Bikies also will be banned from specific locations.

The Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill 2007 also will enable Police Commissioner Mal Hyde to obtain orders from the Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, declaring bikie gangs illegal.

The decision to outlaw bikie gangs comes three days after dozens of people were forced to dive for cover after 15 shots were fired from semi-automatic weapons on Gouger St in the city.

It was the fifth occasion where bikie gangs or associates had opened fire in a public area in the past year.

The Government "hoped" to have the laws in place by July 1. The legislation was criticised as draconian by other states at a March meeting of State and Federal Government ministers.

Greens MLC Mark Parnell and Democrats MLC Sandra Kanck, who between them introduced about 100 failed amendments to the Bill, had branded it "an abuse of police powers".

Opposition police spokesman David Ridgway, however, said the Opposition supported the Bill because it gave police the powers to provide a safe community.

"We acknowledge that we do have problems within the community with motorcycle gangs," he said.

"It is important to give the appropriate measures to police to crack down on these gangs and these recent shootings prove that something needs to be done."

Mr Ridgway said the Bill established the value of the Legislative Council, which was made clear when the Government used it to make needed amendments. That came just hours after Deputy Premier Kevin Foley attacked the House, labelling it irrelevant, reckless and destructive.

"I couldn't believe my ears when I heard the Government moving amendments to its own Bikies Bill because of errors in two clauses relating to the definition of family members and what regular association with members of a declared organisation entails," Mr Ridgway said.

"All I can say to Mr Foley is this thank heavens for the Upper House and its powers of review because we are the ones who have fixed up your defective legislation."

The legislation goes back to the Lower House for final approval this week.

The only way to show this bill for what it is, is to use it to get the people who pushed it through parliment to actually be affected by it

have an outlaw gang send a letter saying that the minister is now an honourary member of the club. Then have six individuals of the gang, who have a criminal record turn up at the ministers office, not parliment as they wont get in, on an individual basis and suddenly that minister is implicated .... and have a camera showing each member entering the ministers local office or have them turn up at events that minister goes too

send it to a current affair show and if the bill has been written as suggested, I havent fully followed it, then that minister should be arrested and prosecuted ...is it that simple I dont know but maybe worth a try

My email to my Fed Rep Amanda Rishworth:


Dear Amanda and staff, thankyou for your attention to my earlier enquiries regarding the "Bikie Bill", now passed through the SA parliament as of last night.

My earlier email outlines some of my concerns and why this should be involve federal review. (Please call me if unsure.).

As this Bill - soon to be Law - REMOVES various rights such as the right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, conviction on balance of probability instead of beyond reasonable doubt, double jeopardy (one WILL now go to goal a second effectively for the original offence!).

The question I MUST raise with the federal government is this:

1. How are my rights as a citizen protected?
2. Can we get (is there..) a very clear statement from the federal government clarifying our rights?

Any "rights" enshrined in law by statute (usually under state law) have been removed by this law.

Please do not mistake or misconstrue this as a plea for the tacit support of criminals or criminal activities - it is most definitely not.

I am absolutely terrified (as a former law student I understand the potential [terrible] consequences of this Bill/Law) and feel this has thrown the State of South Australia back several hundred years in law reform and citizen rights and created a "STASI state". And of human rights issues this Law is nothing short of reprehensible since it denies many basic rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I also point out that the SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is on public record as saying that this Bill/Law is a "social experiment". I am appalled. Therefore I must appeal to a higher level of government for [at least] review.

As my federal member I implore you to investigate this as a matter of urgency, not just for me as your constituent, but for what is right.

CRNT

I understand and saw what fatboy suggested ... but really it would only work if the so called outlaw clubs did it and made a concerted effort, not the average joe

it would need people who this bill directly targets to make such an effort work

PS. By god I hope a few of the "Bikie" groups the SA government have made these politicians honorary members.. It is NOT law YET, it has yet to be signed by the Governor and then gazetted. but only a couple of weeks for this. These politicians, and all those who did NOT speak out, should be made members so that the moment it becomes law, they will be arrested as well.

The funny thing here is, that the "Bikie" groups are actually their own best defence! That's why making the pollies all members as well (with no voting rights of course) has to be done BEFORE this becomes [active] law.

They do not have to be given full membership, affiliate membership is "DEEMED" by the Act to be sufficient. Even someone who SPEAKS to an "outlaw" group can be deemed to be a member for the fulfillment of this Act.

Under the definitions of this Act, you will deemed to be a member for just having an organisation recognizing you to be affiliated, associated or a member of their group.. (hence why I say to make all the pollies some type of member.) This Act DOES NOT REQUIRE the "member" to agree to be a member for the sake of definition. Even simply making an enquiry as to what is required to be a member will place you as a "member" of that group!

I have heard on the grapevine that the Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is really mad at me for saying these things. Quoting himself: "Tough".


--- lifted from the MRA forum at:
http://mrasa.asn.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1427



The word "member" is used throughout the Bill but be aware it does NOT mean that which we would normally understand - it means MUCH MORE.

Here it is - the definition of "member" according to the Bill:

----START EXTRACT---------



"member", in relation to an organisation, includes--
(a) in the case of an organisation that is a body corporate--a director or an officer of the body corporate; and

(b) in any case--

(i) an associate member or prospective member (however described) of the organisation; and

(ii) a person who identifies himself or herself, in some way, as belonging to the organisation; and

(iii) a person who is treated by the organisation or persons who belong to the organisation, in some way, as if he or she belongs to the organisation;


-------END EXTRACT---------


What is of particular interest here is part (b) sub-section (iii). So if an organisation or current members simply recognise someone, anyone, as being associated with them, then that person is deemed to be a member of that organisation!

So if for example, a banned organisation were to have honorary memberships bestowed up on people, then those people would be declared to be members of that organisation and would ALSO go to jail..

In bestowing the honorary membership I would expect such proof of that as a letter informing the individual that they are now considered an honorary member (or even just an associate member will do..) with all the privilidges given accordingly, like being able to attend organisational events, listed in the organisations "hall of fame", or whatever the organisation might do in its social activities.

So, even though this "new member" did neither ask for, enquire, actively pursue, pay a fee, fill out an application form, or anything that WE might consider neccessary to become a member or associate in any way, the organisation can declare an individual to be affiliated in some way!

Unlike this Bill itself, so that this is perfectly clear and unequivocal, it would be prudent for that organisation to ensure that they have records kept of their honorary membership list, that they have sent a certificate or at least a letter, telling that individual that they have been bestowed this great honour, (a copy could even be published in the social pages of the newspapers for public record! or even just a two liner at the back of the newspaper under "Public Notices" would suffice) and that all current members are made aware of the new member (so, for example, under cross-examination every existing member would be able to clearly identify their new honorary members..)

This Bill allows for this situation even though the honorary member / honorary associate member NEVER ASKED FOR IT. It could be bestowed as a complete surprise to the recipient.


----END of lift..--



Some confusion here regarding the wording..

part (b) says: "in any case"

then goes onto each definition, finishing each with "AND".

This should be read as: "AND in any case" each time. (Each new sub-section should begin with "in any case".

And unless I am mistaken, "in any case" could well be [and accurately] exchanged with "regardless".

Which would make that to read "AND regardless", which creates an exclusive OR function. Bad english, absolutely, and I am beginning to suspect done so deliberately.

Which is why any part (i), (ii) or (iii) could be taken as separate definitions. That way, a far greater number of persons could be declared as members.

NB: Normally "and" MEANS "and", but in this case because of the first part "in any case", it changes the meaning [as outlined above].

The very fact that this is so unclear would of course be in itself subject to much legal argument and would muddy the waters regarding the true intent of this Bill. Which is why I think it may have been done deliberately, not because whoever penned it was so stupid..


...WHEW!!

any questions? Ask me.. I'll do my best to reply.

Who can you trust in Government, you have politicians who dont even want to be there but big on opinions......

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/right-person-stuck-in-the-wrong-job/story-e6freagu-1111113021360