This ''information'' can include (or could consist entirely of) a ''protected submission'' evidence by a person who states that he/she is in fear of some reprisal for giving it. It is heard in private by the ''eligible judge'' and cannot be disclosed to the parties whose organisation is sought to be ''declared.'' The ''eligible judge'' is not required to provide any reasons for the decision to declare an organisation. A person who is likely to be effected by the declaration is entitled to make a submission (but not apparently to call evidence or to cross-examine) at the hearing.

It is quite possible that an application based entirely on a ''protected submission'' could proceed to finality on grounds which are never disclosed to the parties whose organisation is sought to be declared.

Once an organisation has been ''declared,'' the police commissioner can apply to the Supreme Court for an ''interim control order'' against members of the organisation. The Court can make an ''interim control order'' against members if (unspecified) ''sufficient grounds'' exist for doing so. This is done on the basis of affidavits provided, and in the case of an ''interim control order,'' it is done without the members affected being present or even aware that the application is being made. Once an ''interim control order'' is made against a member, that member is banned from ''associating with any other controlled member.''

''Associate'' includes communicating with a ''controlled member,'' by any means including post, facsimile, telephone or email. The maximum penalty for doing so is two years' jail for a first offence and five years' jail for any subsequent offence. A ''controlled member'' is also automatically prohibited from carrying on certain occupations for which registration is required. These include being a truck driver, a motor vehicle dealer or repairer or a stable hand. Once an ''interim control order'' has been made, the parties affected are served notice of the order and of any evidence in support of it other than evidence which consists of a ''protected submission.''

This means that where the evidence consists entirely of a ''protected submission,'' the parties affected are given no knowledge or information of the grounds upon which the order was sought or obtained. They will therefore have no way of effectively responding to it. The legislation, however, requires that parties who object to the making of a control order must file an affidavit supporting the objection.

The upshot of the ''anti-bikie laws'' is that on the basis of mere suspicion and in hearings that may be conducted entirely behind closed doors, people who have not been accused of any crime can suffer the risk of being sent to jail for ''associating'' with one another for any purpose and banned from pursuing their legitimate occupations. How then did we ever survive the scourge of the dreaded ''bikies'' without such ''tough new laws?''Since the ill-fated bikie brawl at Sydney Airport in March this year, NSW Police have been actively pursuing and arresting members of bikie gangs for offences such as possessing illegal drugs and weapons. In doing so they are taking control of a situation which had been getting out of hand. Similar arrests and confiscation of property have occurred in the ACT.

Surely this would be impossible without the benefit of the new ''anti-bikie'' legislation. The fact is that the new law does not come into force in NSW until June 2009. This was all done under existing criminal laws which are and always have been perfectly adequate for the purpose.

The issue was only ever one of police resourcing which was enhanced in NSW by diverting 75 police officers to the newly formed Strike Force Raptor set up to deal with bikie-related crime, no doubt to the relief of organised criminals who are not associated with motor cycle gangs. Police resourcing was always the issue, not the lack of ''tough laws'' to deal with the situation.

The legislation creates significant and totally unwarranted invasions of human rights such as freedom of association and the right to a fair trial, which have been enjoyed in the common law world for centuries. It is also specifically incompatible with the ACT Human Rights Act which gives statutory expression to those and other rights in this jurisdiction. The ''tough new anti-bikie laws'' are capable of being used in circumstances that have nothing to do with their stated purpose.

To see how this can happen, one only needs to remember the unfortunate treatment of Dr Mohammed Haneef at the hands of the Australian Federal Police under the equally ''tough'' Commonwealth anti terrorism laws.

The ACT Government, particularly Attorney-General Simon Corbell, is currently under pressure from Federal and state counterparts and even the ACT Opposition to ''fall into line'' by passing similar legislation here. It is susceptible to being portrayed by others as wimpish for not supporting ''tough new laws''.

Just a few years ago the Chief Minister was in precisely the same situation in his opposition to the ''tough new laws'' to deal with terrorism. Far from being wimpish, his principled stand on that issue ultimately led the national debate on the whole topic and altered significant aspects of the law, not just in the ACT but in other jurisdictions.

Likewise in the case of the ''tough new anti-bikie laws'' the ACT Government is to be applauded for its resistance to the passing of these draconian and completely unnecessary laws.

Greg Walker is a Canberra solicitor with specialty in Human Rights Law.