Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4147 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

well before September 11. This provision is not a response to recent events. This is not a knee-jerk response by this government to the terrorist attacks on New York. This provision was drafted well before those events occurred and I am concerned about suggestions that this government has run off and made some hurried response to those events, as serious and as concerning as they are. So to suggest that in some way this government is engaged in some overreaction or some knee-jerk response to those events is simply wrong.

This government-and I have said it in this place a number of times-is conscious of the danger of overreacting in these very uncertain times. We do need to be steady and measured in what we do. We do need to understand, and we do understand all too clearly, that this war against terrorists and terrorism that we are facing could just as easily be lost if victory is purchased at the expense-and this is a point that Ms Tucker makes-of our fundamental democratic rights. What do we gain if we lose everything that we hold dear?

Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 pm.

MR STANHOPE: Mr Speaker, I wish to conclude the remarks I was making before the break in relation to Ms Tucker's amendment, an amendment which the Labor Party government is supporting.

Ms Tucker: You wouldn't know it from your speech.

MR STANHOPE: Well-

Ms Tucker: Don't start again. You don't need to respond.

MR STANHOPE: As I said, Ms Tucker, your speech in support of your amendment was not particularly persuasive. In fact, I sat there thinking that you were making it hard for me, Ms Tucker.

Mr Stefaniak: You would have had the numbers, anyway.

MR STANHOPE: That is right. I have no difficulty in putting the matter beyond doubt. The point I am making is that, as far as the government is concerned, it never was in doubt, and I stand by that position.

The only other point I wish to make in addition to the points that I made before is that I do not agree with the connection that Ms Tucker makes between the position that she takes in relation to this offence and the position that was put by the Commonwealth and applies in Commonwealth legislation in the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002. That position, I believe, is quite different, and my advice is to that effect. In relation to that aspect, Ms Tucker draws comparisons and says, indeed, that the amendment that she proposes is, in fact, of the same order as additions that were made or exemptions that were provided in the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act.

The advice I have in relation to that is that the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act does not, as I think is being suggested, exempt from prosecution protesters and industrial campaigners who cause and intend to cause serious damage to

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .