WOW! Take about Communism in another form. Freedom of association squashed for what gain? Nothing , nil narda!
Just a bunch of retarded politicians trying to look good in the eyes of the sheeple.
Its a sad day in Australian History.
Well Comrades I can see this law being abused to the 'Nth" degree, cant you?

Does this include the top Criminal Organisation in the state?

Parliment.

The're all terrorists.

The waste, year after year and they bring a Bill in like this and pass it.

How naieve or Bent are these fucks.

Problem is that the normal Tax Payer cant see it or turn an eye to it.

So Sad the Song.

most legal experts seem to think this revised version is unconstitutional and will not stand up to a high court challenge as well. the use of "secret evidence" along with evidence that cant be argued,the change of assumption of innocence to balance of probabilities is also a major concern for the legal brains.

Onya angry

Do you have a link that states the difference between what was and is now and what has been altered.

I think there could be many sections within the old and revised acts that would be hard to disseminate.

I don't know if the findings of the last challenge was concise enough to show the NSW and other Parliaments that a prima faci case and habious corpus is fundamental to a democratic society and is contrary to UN resolutions in `1948 adhoc.
What are they going to try next, A clear and present danger???

These AG's with their dick swinging,chest beating will not quit until the Australian Government or in part are taken to the UN or similar sections of world justices and prove themselves any better than Syria etc. etc etc The High and mighty bullshit artists that they are proving themselves to be time and time again.

It's not their money anyway that they spend supporting sectarian acts of parliament that are not only against their own constitution but human rights.
Really shouldn't a MLA quit their position if they have sworn an oath and then fail to keep it??

A letter is being drafted to my NSW MLA
Maybe a call or similar letter to those that GAF would be in order.

Don't get me wrong I am not supporting any illegal activity in the least.A crime is a crime , there are laws against crimes and should be debated and penalties justified in A COURT OF LAW
It is all about the "vibe" of the Gov wanting to further change democracy with more laws rules and regulations that inhibit personal rights and freedoms.

 DON'T  PANIC  YET - the club has to be declared a criminal organisation 1st.

NSW solicitor Wayne Baffsky who took the last version of these laws to the High Court and won is speaking on Greg Hirsts radio show tonight 10-midnight  on 2ccr fm 'ride' and on the internet..about these changes.....

alive905.com.au/listen/listenonline/

Thanks for the link GG, listening in now.
T1

Yeah Wayne has said that many times before about the cost to defend being prohibitive.

In one interview he seems to explain it is because of the sheer size of the HA's brief. Apparently the evidence against them involves boxes and boxes of info from around the world covering 60+ years.....some of it just media reports !.. but it all has to be dissected and contested piece by piece, and its the cost of a team of  defence lawyers to do that  is what he means I think.  An application against a smaller club with a lesser volume of evidence against it may be able to be managed by a smaller team...perhaps that is part of the tactic behind the NSW gov's choice, an attempt to financially drain each target until they are unable to defend themselves.. 

Scouser, here is a link to the NSW bill. Its called the Crimes(Criminal Organisations Control) Bill 2012

The link to parliament on this page identifies the changes between the old version and the new. Follow the links in Hansard for Wed the 14th march in the Legislative Assembly.   

www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/bills

13 Conduct of hearings of applications for declarations under this Part
(1) The rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing of an application under
this Part.

So the courts can hear "heresay" evidence - "evidence" that requires no proof

32 Burden of proof
(1) Any question of fact to be decided in proceedings under this Act is to be
decided on the balance of probabilities.

This is how civil - not criminal disputes are decided, a much lower threshold.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a control order made in relation to a
person is conclusive evidence that the person is a controlled member of
the particular declared organisation to which the control order relates
and of the terms of the order (including any exemptions from the
operation of this section under section 19 (7) (a)).

So, the rules of evidence do not have to apply, then when an order is made it is deemed to be "conclusive evidence" - meaning nothing further is required.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, in proceedings for an offence against this
section, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the
defendant associated with another person for any particular purpose or
that the association would have led to the commission of any offence.

A person who has an order against them can then get charged with the offence of associating with another person without the need for police to have to prove there was any offences being committed. The jail periods are 2 - 5 years.. To summarise, they require no evidence to be tested through normal judicial processes, an order can be made, that order in itself is then apparently enough "evidence" to have someone sent to jail.

34 Immunity from liability
No civil or criminal liability attaches to:
(a) the Attorney General, the Commissioner, a police officer or other
person exercising functions under this Act (whether or not under
delegation), or
(b) the Crown,

That part is gold, if they "act in good faith" applying for an order or charging people with the offences and get it wrong they cant be held liable and sued or charged for perjury and the like.

(5) The following forms of associations are to be disregarded for the
purposes of this section in its application to a defendant to whom an
interim control order relates if the defendant proves that the association
was reasonable in the circumstances:
(a) associations between close family members,
(b) associations occurring in the course of a lawful occupation,
business or profession,
(c) associations occurring at a course of training or education of a
kind prescribed by the regulations between persons enrolled in
the course,
(d) associations occurring at a rehabilitation, counselling or therapy
session of a kind prescribed by the regulations,
(e) associations occurring in lawful custody or in the course of
complying with a court order,
(f) other associations of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

These are options for those on receiving end of an order, possible defences.

Heres a final thought, police forces worldwide are known to have police involved in crimes - hence why they all have their own internal investigators and external investigative / oversight bodies. This legislation does not require all people associated with a "criminal" organisation to be involved in crimes, just some who have influence over others. So how about police forces be deemed a "Criminal Organisation". Only difficult part is that the orders can only be applied for by police, fairly unlikely..

 

 (5) The following forms of associations are to be disregarded for the
purposes of this section in its application to a defendant to whom an
interim control order relates if the defendant proves that the association
was reasonable in the circumstances:
(a) associations between close family members,
(b) associations occurring in the course of a lawful occupation,
business or profession,
(c) associations occurring at a course of training or education of a
kind prescribed by the regulations between persons enrolled in
the course,
(d) associations occurring at a rehabilitation, counselling or therapy
session of a kind prescribed by the regulations,
(e) associations occurring in lawful custody or in the course of
complying with a court order,
(f) other associations of a kind prescribed by the regulations.

 

So a Club can register itself as a lawful business and they can all be together, carrying out their business 

Exactly. "We're just mechanics. Sometimes we go for a ride to liaise with other mechanics."

For being a 'Generic' Law for Organised crime, who fits this section?

 

3 Definitions

You are right Dragon Man - it does say "AND" - but "9 Eligible Judge MAY make declaration..." the word "MAY" is used throughout the Bill for all the sections about what "evidence" the judge "may" consider to make his decision - there are no 'must' considers like normal legislation, so they are not bound to any bench marks to form their decision in the first place, in theory then they could decide a club fits all the categories without much real evidence in the first place..