“This law enters the bedrooms of South Australians; it makes it illegal for one person to have a relationship with another. It is a very rare occasion when the law enters the bedroom. It is saying to the boyfriends and girlfriends of those targeted by these laws that if they continue in a relationship they’ll go to jail for five years.”

Democrats MLC Sandra Kanck is equally opposed. “ It’s distressing to see Premier Mike Rann attacking not just his political opponents – we all expect that – but he now insults the integrity of senior lawyers and QCs.

“This sort of arrogance and intolerance of dissent creates a climate where government abuse of power is more likely. Mr Rann's comments prove why we need an independent anti-crime commission.”

Ms Kanck’s comments came after Mr Rann said that under his watch, police would be allowed to breach the civil rights and liberties of accused South Australians, even those not found guilty by any court.

“Don Dunstan would not recognise this as a Labor Government,” Ms Kanck said.

Mr Rann also attacked lawyers acting for accused South Australians. “The legal community has condemned every action we have taken to toughen up the law on bikies,” Mr Rann said, even though his Crime Act doesn’t mention bikies. “I think it’s a good thing that we breach (their) civil liberties.”

Mr Rann went further. He accused lawyers of trying to frustrate government, a comment the well-respected chairman of the Criminal Law Committee, Michael Abbott QC, called “intemperate and inaccurate”.

“The rule of law applies to everyone, be they premier or bikie,” Mr Abbott said. “The suggestion that there should be somehow one rule of law for the rest of the community and a different and lesser standard for some other members of the community is an affront to our system of criminal justice.

“It could be bikies one day, indigenous people the next, intellectually disadvantaged the next. The list goes on.”

German clergyman Pastor Martin Niemöller, imprisoned by the Nazis in World War II, put Abbott’s argument a different way half a century earlier: “In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

So who is affected now that no one is speaking up? Laws apply universally, to everyone. If you had had a drink-driving conviction 30 years ago and now associate in any way with somebody who’s also had a conviction six or more times in a single year, you are automatically guilty. The punishment? Jail. In fact, the government is yet to prescribe the types of past convictions covered by this law.

You’ll be guilty if you associate with six different members of a declared organisation in a year – it doesn’t have to be the same person.

Perhaps you’re a soccer mum or a dad taking your son to the footy. One of the other dads is the member of a declared organisation. Now you’re at risk of being swept up by the new laws.

So what’s a declared organisation? Well that, says Mr Parnell – a lawyer himself - is up to the police and the government.

“The police make a list of organisations. They present this list to the Attorney-General and he ticks it off. It’s that simple,” Mr Parnell said.

It won’t matter if you don’t know that the person you’re chatting with at the soccer game or at the pub is a member of a declared organisation or subject to a control order.

If you don’t take what the law calls reasonable steps to find out whether the person next to you is a member of a declared organisation or subject to a control order, you can be jailed for being ‘reckless to the fact’. Mr Parnell calls this the ‘speed dating’ clause.

And as an innocent, falsely accused mum or dad, you can’t effectively oppose a control order because police evidence remains secret; it is not presented in open court.

“Governments and the police do sometimes get it wrong,” Mr Parnell says. “Stripping a citizen’s right to appeal and review bad decisions when mistakes have happened are a direct attack on fundamental human rights. Premier Rann and Attorney-General Atkinson should stop beating the populist law and order drum, and start protecting long-cherished democratic principles.”

The government has made the law retrospective. What was legal once is illegal now, and if you were a member of a perfectly legal organisation 20 years ago – like your nephew may have been – then he can still be caught up by the changes today.

Mr Atkinson defends the law’s retrospectivity. “They could be caught by these laws but you know if the criminal law were imposed on people to the letter of the law in every case then life would be hell,” Mr Atkinson told Ian Henschke on ABC’s Stateline.

“Our freedoms rely on living in a democratic rule of law state in which the police and prosecution service only apply the law in the most severe cases. And so I expect the sensible exercise of police discretion and prosecutorial discretion will make this law liveable,” the Attorney said.

Ms Kanck scoffed at the notion. “In other words, our protection from unjust laws now supposedly lies in the hands of the police themselves,” she said. “Unjust laws should be thrown out. That’s the protection we should have.”

Yet the Crime Act passed with the support of the government and opposition, Family First, Ann Bressington and John Darley from Nick Xenophon’s No Pokies group, National Party Minister Karlene Maywald, and independents Bob Such and Rory McEwen.

The State Government compares organised crime in SA with prohibition-era gangsters in Chicago, and says the Serious and Organised Crime Control Act will clean them up.

History records a different outcome. Notorious Chicago’s gangster was Al Capone was caught using existing taxation laws without US politicians boasting of breaching civil liberties. But history also records one other thing. Organised crime in Chicago, and even in New York, had tentacles that reached all the way into the police and politics. That’s corruption. And while the State Government passed SA’s draconian law (to use the Attorney-General’s description) it rejected legislation to fight other, far more prevalent organised crime.

Last week 80 of the state’s most senior lawyers including QCs petitioned Mr Rann to set up an independent commission against official crime and corruption.

The Premier and Attorney-General instantly rejected the call. “Unlike other states, in SA a wide variety of mechanisms are tailored and primed to investigate allegations of corruption in specific areas,” Mr Atkinson responded.

Lawyers don’t agree. “We don’t have sufficient bodies which ensure accountability and transparency,” said barrister George Mancini, chairman of the SA Council for Civil Liberties.

Former Queensland Labor Premier Peter Beattie has said an independent anti-corruption fighter is essential in SA. “All states need a watchdog beyond government control to maintain honesty and integrity,” he said, and NSW Premier Morris Iemma insists SA is “crazy” not to have one.

Former senior Labor Senator Chris Schacht, retired auditor-general Ken MacPherson, the State Opposition, Greens and Democrats all insist: organised crime and corruption needs an ICAC.

Meanwhile, imagine your principled nephew went off the rails. He got involved in politics, fell in with the right crowd and sucked up to police. A long time ago he spent a few months at a resort paid for by a developer. He appointed business mates to government boards and signed contracts to build private jails. Now he’s regularly taking bribes and is a respected MP who’s forgotten his old mates.

Which nephew is the one who’ll be caught, in Mike Rann’s South Australia?