Police seized this Finks OMCG jacket after an incident in the Blue Mountains in 2018. Photo: NSW Police Facebook.
The ACT Opposition appears to be a lone rider in its call for anti-consorting laws against bikies. The Territory’s government is opposed to such legislation while its human rights commissioner is concerned about the proposal.
Police allege a brawl that broke out inside a Braddon bar last weekend involved several members of an interstate organised motorcycle gang (OMCG) and resulted in four members of the public being assaulted.
Shadow Minister for Police, Deborah Morris of the Canberra Liberals, said the incident demonstrated the need for anti-consorting laws in the ACT.
“Labor’s refusal to take outlaw bikie violence seriously is putting innocent Canberrans at risk,” she said.
“The Police Minister consistently refuses to introduce anti-consorting laws, saying they are ‘inconsistent with human rights principles we have in the ACT’ while the Attorney-General says she’s ‘not convinced anti-consorting laws are the answer’.
“And yet outlaw bikie gang members themselves have described Canberra’s permissive legal environment as giving them a ‘safe haven’ to get up to no good which, on this occasion, has resulted in four members of the public being assaulted.”
A Canberra Liberals spokesperson claimed OMCGs continued to meet in the ACT because it remained legal for them to wear their gang colours, jackets and openly congregate in large numbers.
“Recent figures obtained by the Canberra Liberals show it has cost ACT taxpayers more than $400,000 to keep an eye on outlaw bikies during their national runs since 2024,” the spokesperson said.
ACT Human Rights Commissioner Penelope Mathew said combatting serious organised crime was a legitimate and important aim for government.
However, she said the anti-consorting models previously proposed for the Territory relied on unfettered police discretion without adequate oversight.
“Such models are not sufficiently targeted, do not provide the necessary safeguards against misuse and have not been shown to achieve their stated objective,” Dr Mathew said.
“Anti-consorting laws in operation elsewhere – such as those in NSW – have been shown to depart from the legislated intent to disrupt serious crime.
“Those laws have been demonstrated to unfairly target certain marginalised communities in addition to and instead of OMCGs”
Police seized Rebels paraphernalia during a raid in Wagga Wagga in May 2016. Photo: NSW Police Facebook.
Dr Mathew said she was concerned by laws that may arbitrarily target community members based on their associations rather than any actual link to criminal activity.
“Police powers have continued to expand without any systemic overarching review of those powers nor of the adequacy of oversight or any unintended consequences,” she said.
“A review of current powers and oversight mechanisms and their effectiveness would be helpful.”
An ACT Government spokesperson said the government had no plans to introduce anti-consorting laws.
“The ACT Government has long-standing concerns about the impact of such laws on civil liberties and human rights, particularly the potential for these laws to criminalise social relationships without evidence of criminal activity and disproportionately target vulnerable groups.”
The spokesperson said instead of such laws, the ACT relied on: existing criminal laws to prosecute criminal behaviour, surveillance and intelligence sharing with other jurisdictions, and task forces and police initiatives used to target gangs and organised crime.
Shane Rattenbury says anti-consorting laws capture vulnerable people not in OMCGs. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
ACT Greens leader Shane Rattenbury said evidence showed anti-consorting laws were not proven to be an effective measure to combat organised criminal groups.
“In reality, these types of laws often cast a much wider net, capturing families and groups of vulnerable people who are not necessarily part of OMCGs but who might have a historical criminal conviction,” he said.
“This can split up families and communities and exclude people from prosocial supports and employment.”
