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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4148 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

property, or destroy or seriously disrupt an electronic system, such as a telecommunications system. The exemption applies only where death, serious harm or endangerment is caused and the protester, et cetera, does not intend to cause the death, harm or endangerment. Therefore, the fact that the sabotage offences do not include an exemption for protesters is consistent with the Commonwealth act, because the sabotage offences only concern damage and disruption to public facilities and do not include elements relating to harm that may be caused to persons.

Secondly, the term "terrorist act"is broadly defined in the Commonwealth legislation and includes certain conduct that is done with the intention-again, we have to go back always to the intention-of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause with the intention of coercing or influencing a government by intimidation or intimidating the public or a section of the public. Since many, if not all, protests and strike actions would fall within this description, excluding protesters and those involved in industrial action is appropriate in those circumstances.

I will conclude on that point. I have simply sought to put in some context the government's position on the bill and to explain that, whilst the government supports Ms Tucker's amendment, which does perhaps add some comfort, the government's position is that it does not change the position in the bill as circulated. It perhaps provides some comfort to those that want comfort in terms of what is the government's intention. The government's position is that the provision is quite explicit in its attention to sabotage-sabotage as a separate offence, sabotage as an offence that demands the serious attention that this bill gives it, sabotage as an offence that should not be tolerated in any sense, sabotage as an offence that justly attracts a potential penalty of up to 25 years imprisonment.

We believe that the provision is quite explicit. We believe that the provision is justified. We believe that, in retrospect, the events in Bali and in New York in the last year and a half give extra force and effect to the need for jurisdictions to ensure that their legislation in relation to such issues is fit to meet the purpose. But, as I say, Ms Tucker quite rightly has concerns around democratic rights, individual liberties. These are issues that concern me, and in relation to which I have well articulated views and commitment.

To the extent that Ms Tucker believes that there is a need to put beyond all doubt any suggestion that this provision could affect the democratic right to protest, to demonstrate or to free speech, then the government is happy to accede to her desire for that to be achieved. But, in doing so, we do not resile from the position I have put that we do not believe that there is any circumstance in which the provision could possibly be used contrary to its intention of dealing with sabotage, a major offence dealing with major disruption, major economic loss and a major interference with infrastructure or property.

MR STEFANIAK (7.38): I will speak only once. My comments, I think, will be equally applicable to Kerrie Tucker's next amendment. I have a lot of sympathy with what the Chief Minister is saying in terms of what this provision actually intends and how the law actually does operate and will continue to operate not only in the ACT but, I would think, in the rest of this country.

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