fair enough though the difference between 200 per year and 266 this year seems rather low to me.
For the record, it is indeed Ken’s original post I broadly agree with.

Paul

Thus, the 266 value would be on the high side compared with our historic low period and most recent years have been above that. The years around 1990 were probably the highest murder rate we have seen for 100 years so well done to whoever managed to get it to start going down again, but having a downward trend from the highest point probably isn’t exactly an awesome achievement. I dare say that the recent recession won’t make things any easier.

There’s some long term graphs in “Trends and Issues #61″

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/61-80/tandi61.aspx

whilst being in general agreement with the sentiments you bring forward, I have a minor gripe about the murder rates. My understanding was always that murder rates have declined in the last 20 years or so, even below previous levels. The latest evidence I could dig up was

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/1-20/01.aspx

which indeed says in its abstract, when speaking about 2006-2007 ‘Australia wide, 260 incidents of homicide occurred in the year, taking 266 victims and involving 296 offenders. This was a decrease of 23 incidents and 45 victims from the previous year and is consistent with a significant long-range trend toward fewer incidents both per capita and absolutely since inception of the NHMP. ‘

The actual report shows a continuous, though not spectacular, decline in homicide rates since 1989.

Paul

I feel somewhat insulted to be told that when a man murders another man, slowly and deliberately, in one of the most closely monitored buildings in the country, with multiple witnesses, many security guards on hand, and video cameras from every conceivable angle; when the names of all parties concerned were checked and documented on various flight lists and none of those concerned made the slightest attempt to disguise their actions or use any form of stealth; I’m told that our laws as they stand are unable to deal with this situation and that we need new police powers to catch these guys. Fair enough that I’ve suffered many insults to my intelligence over the years (some of them from myself), but it gets beyond a joke when educated people start taking this logic seriously (or pretend to, for the public image).

If civil rights liberals could for once stop playing their mournful violin solos over the treatment of scoundrels like Hicks then they might notice the changed mood on the street.

The changing mood on the street is the scariest part of all this.

How I would love to vote them out if there was a decent alternative.

May I suggest the consideration of indecent alternatives, along the principles of “least worst”. May I also point out the importance of the upper house as a house of review (both at the state and federal level) and the benefit of minor parties in being able to stubbornly blockade stupid laws.

By the way, on the off chance that there are people round here in some way curious about the murder rate and what causes it, I’ll point out that the per-capita murder rate in Australia showed a general trend of steady decline until it reached a minima somewhere round about 1953 and showed a general trend of steady increase thereafter. Might be a complete coincidence that in 1953 diacetylmorphine became a prohibited substance, thus opening the door to undreamed of profits for drug dealers and the gangs that they require to operate their business. Yet another insult to my intelligence is being told that it is necessary that we have taxpaid soldiers guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan because somehow this is of benefit to the local peasants and they will appreciate our efforts (fortunately no one even pretends to believe this, so we can still have a good laugh, ha ha).

And what of the implied rights of political communication per Theophanous v Herald Weekly Times and Lange v ABC etc (Granted it’s a “shield” not a “sword”) If bikies get together to discuss this legislation will they not have this right of association and communication at least on those occasions? What if they discuss politics all the time, and can prove it?

Unlike Grollo and the telephone tapping warrant cases held not to be judicial functions (and a sinecure for the avalanche it seems of retired judges)there can be no doubt that a control order in the NSW regime is a judicial function but I would have grave doubts that a Judge annointed or sacked on the whim of the AG for the purposes of the legislation (let alone implied compliance to pressure from the AG to “go with the flow” or face the sack) is constitutional.

(Kirby at 50, 51 etc, in dissent)

In deciding these questions, this Court is called upon, once again, to consider the ambit of the constitutional principle which it established in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)[35]. That principle[36]:

forbids attempts of State Parliaments to impose on courts, notably Supreme Courts, functions that would oblige them to act in relation to a person in a manner which is inconsistent with traditional judicial process[37]. It prevents attempts to impose on such courts proceedings [not] otherwise known to the law, that is, those not partaking of the nature of legal proceedings[38]. It proscribes parliamentary endeavours to compromise the institutional impartiality of a State Supreme Court[39]. It forbids the conferral upon State courts of functions repugnant to judicial process[40].

Experience teaches that governments and parliaments in Australia occasionally attempt to spend the reputational currency of the independent courts in the pursuit of objectives which legislators deem to be popular[41]. They sometimes seek to cloak their decisions in the neutral colors of judicial action[42]. Novel arrangements are then introduced into the law that impinge on the judicial process. When challenged, such arrangements should be the subject of strict scrutiny.

Hear hear, but Im not holding my breath for the HCA to apply the Kable v DPP principles against the NSW government.

What I find particularly disturbing is in the NSW legislation:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/coca2009391/s19.html
CRIMES (CRIMINAL ORGANISATIONS CONTROL) ACT 2009 SECT 19

(3) In considering whether or not there are sufficient grounds to make the control order in relation to the person, the Court is to take into account:
(a) the affidavit from the Commissioner, or affidavits from one or more other senior police officers, that verified the contents of the application for the interim control order concerned, and
(b) the affidavit provided by the person with the notice of objection referred to in section 16, and
(c) any other information provided by the Commissioner or person to whom the order relates at the hearing.

s 20 The person to whom the control order relates may appear at the hearing of the application and make submissions in relation to the application Cripes, for a moment I thought I was in a middle ages Star Chamber time warp, but hey no the legislation contemplates a control order without the accused being present:

s19(4) The control order may be made whether or not the person concerned is present at the hearing of the application.

Trial in absentianow thats procedural fairness (not)
All that guff about affidavits suggests to me that the right of cross examination by an accused is absent. This appears to be worse than DOCS casesat least there is a right of cross examination in those proceedings, but damnation,I forgot: you cant see the intellegence report cos that would identify the source and thats public interest indemnity, the defence might find out its a load of cobblers, and that wouldnt do either for DOCs matters or these!

So, the Commissioner can write down all his secret reports from Police Intelligence (I submit from time to time a contradiction in terms, sorry I digress) on a piece of paper (affidavit)and present it as evidence for the annointed ones to contemplate for proscribing an organisation or issuing a control order. Thats hearsay evidence btw, just like the admissability of hearsay evidence in the Children and Young Persons Care & Protection Act proceedings in NSW.

Uh oh, I hadn’t read s13 (1) The rules of evidence do not apply to the hearing of an application for a declaration under this Part. Worse than I thought.

Summary: Prima facie its much worse than Star Chambers. (I just hope that the Department of Community Services doesnt get any funny ideas about wanting this sort of power and presenting hearsay evidence in secret.)

Kiss goodbye to transparency, procedural fairness, the Evidence Act etc etc and JUSTICE if this abominable legislation is allowed to go uncorrected by the HCA.

All three State laws are clearly modelled on federal anti-terrorism laws passed in 2005 providing for groups engaging in or supporting terrorism to be prohibited, and for individuals to be subjected to preventative detention orders and control orders.

The reason for that is that there is a common factor, namely the emergence of ethnic sectarian elements in both terrorist and out-law motorcycle gangs. Whats happening is that the old Anglo bikie are kind of growing old and dying out, ever notice how many grey beards and pot-bellies they sport? Younger Bikie gangs are turning into fronts for ethnic gangstas. The SMH for once mentions the unmentionable:

AN ANCIENT religious enmity is at the centre of a new conflict in the Sydney bikie scene, with a new gang comprised mainly of Sunni Muslims warring with a group of bikies with a Shiite Muslim background.

The president of Notorious is a Lebanese-Australian with a long-standing association with a bikie from a colourful Sydney Sunni Lebanese family. The two are among Sydney’s original “Nike” bikies – sporting white sneakers, fashionable T-shirts and clean-shaven instead of the traditional boots, dirty vests and bushy beards – and both are from Sunni families from Sydney’s west.

This problem seems to be getting worse, not better. SO authorities are sensibly trying to nip it in the bud. Better give up a little bit of liberty now than alot later.

Ken Parish says:

From my observations at least, there is little sign that bikie gangs are more prevalent or violent than in the past.

As far as I can see, bikie gangs mostly only bash, shoot or stab each other, and the customers for the drugs they peddle are consenting adults who would buy them elsewhere if things are made too hot for existing gangs.

Lets just do nothing like the Canadians, those lovely liberal people kind of like the Americans but without that nasty law and order dog whistle. They are always very precious about their civil rights. It took about 150 murders between mostly ethnic bikie gangs before they came to their senses.

Or the super-duper liberal Scandinavians who likewise have an ethnic bikie problem on their hands.

Lasse Wierup, a crime reporter at Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter newspaper, says that Swedish biker gangs have lost ground in recent years, often to competition from “immigrant gangs” from suburban projects.

Sweden’s justice minister, Beatrice Ask, recently said there was a need to “react very forcefully” to the threat, while her Danish counterpart, Brian Mikkelsen, announced “extraordinary steps,” including doubling jail sentences for gang-related offenses.

Whats missing from the media-academia liberal view is a grip on the reality of most suburban Australians. Alot of money tied up in real estate and 1.6 trophy kids. Also, so many Australians travel. Not wanting to risk “relaxed and comfortable” by an experiment with the interesting life led by foreigners in their “vibrant” urbs.

More generally the public long ago turned off on the subject of more rights for criminals and deviants. If civil rights liberals could for once stop playing their mournful violin solos over the treatment of scoundrels like Hicks then they might notice the changed mood on the street.

Strangely, the SA, NSW and NT anti-bikie laws have generated almost no debate in either the blogosphere or mainstream media.

There was actually plenty of discussion on ABC local radio in Sydney (if that meets your defnition of MSM). The NSW AG had to come on and defend the legislation in one hard interview, and sounded like a complete ass. How I would love to vote them out if there was a decent alternative.

Although I havem’t looked at the victorian legislation closely (which all A-Gs have agreed toa dopt), it appears from this press release from John Brumby that its emphasis is along the lines you suggest i.e. consorting, RICO etc:

Focusing on membership of bikie gangs, rather than the criminal behaviour of their members, is not sufficient to address serious and organised crime in the complex and changing environment which Australia faces, he said.

Victorias tough laws attack all forms of organised crime, whether perpetrated by bikie gangs, underworld groups, triads or any other form of organised criminal association.

Victorias laws make sure our justice system deals with the Mr Bigs of organised crime. Our laws are all about treating the cause, not just the symptoms of organised crime.

Mr Hulls said Victoria had a range of laws that effectively targeted organised crime including:
Coercive questioning powers to assist in the investigation of organised crime offences with a view to gathering intelligence and information to secure prosecutions and disrupt criminal organisations;
An asset confiscation regime that enables assets that have been used in or derived from criminal activity to be confiscated, removing the profit motive for criminality;
Legislation to prevent people from consorting for the purposes of organised crime which effectively targets all persons who associate with organised crime figures and not just bikie gangs; and
Surveillance devices, controlled operations, assumed identities and witness protection legislation, which was agreed by the Leaders Summit on Terrorism and Multijurisdictional Crime in 2002.

Mr Hulls said only Victoria and Queensland had implemented the full suite of legislation for cross-border investigative powers and, as a result, these investigative tools were not being appropriately used across jurisdictions.

In fact Brumby is being a little disingenuous here. The SA/NSW/NT legislation doesn’t confine itself to bikie gangs, indeed it doesn’t mention them. Any group alleged to be involved in organised crime can be prohibited, and any or all of their members subjected to control orders etc. The real problem with the SA model is not that it’s targeted just at bikie gangs but rather the range of issues of principle and constitutionality that I discuss in this post.

Generally speaking I agree with you that the Victorian approach looks to be greatly preferable and does not look to possess the disturbing features of the SA/NSW/NT model. My concern is that, despite agreeing to enact the Victorian legislation, SA, NSW and NT show no sign of any intention to repeal their existing obnoxious regimes (or proceed with enacting it in the case of the NT – it’s due for second reading in the August sittings).

Unfortunately the case for concern isn’t helped by pieces like this one from Richard Ackland which surrounds the argument with the kind of sneers typically directed against “moral panics”, and which is implicitly opposed to any restriction on “freedom of association” (I don’t think he uses either term, but they are standard in the genre).

Even if the level of criminality among bikie gangs hasn’t changed much, the extent to which they operate as organised enterprises, with fortified headquarters and so on seems to have increased. That implies to me, a need for a legislative capacity to deal with continuing criminal organisations that isn’t easily satisfied by common law. But, as you say, that shouldn’t mean the removal of protections against misconduct by police and prosecutors.

I don’t know much about either but I’d be interested in a comparison with the Consorting Acts that were used to break up gangs in the 1920s, and also with the (civil) RICO legislation in the US.