Attorney General John Rau said the State Government would introduce tougher laws targeting criminal organisations following the success of similar laws interstate.
Bikie gangs have been able to successfully challenge existing laws, which enable the Supreme Court to declare them as criminal organisations.
Under the new laws, this power would be handed to State Parliament, which would make launching legal challenges more difficult.
But the Opposition has criticised the move as being a cheap shot to make another announcement when it was clear that current laws provided the Supreme Court with the power to declare organisations that were not being used.
Mr Rau said that elements of NSW and Queensland’s laws had been tested in the High Court, which SA would replicate.
“The Government will be able to list criminal organisations by regulation (through Parliament),” he said.
“The new laws will also allow for a more national approach in relation to serious and organised crime.
“Warnings and notices issued to individuals in states that have similar consorting laws will apply here in SA.”
Mr Rau said the new laws would also make it an offence for members of a criminal organisation to:
RECRUIT anyone to become part of a criminal organisation;
ENTER a licensed venue wearing or carrying a prohibited item such as colours (patches) or clothing identifying a criminal gang.
ENTER a place or event that has been banned by serious and organised crime regulations.
“We will continue to monitor the approach taken by other states to further crackdown on these criminals and consider whether such laws are appropriate for SA,” Mr Rau said.
Deputy Opposition leader Vickie Chapman said the Liberals would support whatever helped to crack down on criminal gangs or behaviour.
“We already have significant laws ... yet we haven’t seen that translated into people being charged and convicted,” she said.
“We haven’t seen the detail yet but it appears the Government want to shift the determination who are in criminal gangs from the judiciary to the Parliament.
“It appears there has been a lack of prosecution of these cases for the judiciary to deal with.
“It would be very unusual to ask the Parliament to be the arbiter of the interpretation of laws.
“That’s why we have a separation of powers.”