Page 3724 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.23): I welcome this motion, simply because it allows us to have this contentious matter discussed in the Assembly—not just in the Chief Minister’s office, not just in cabinet and not just in caucus. I believe that this is what the Assembly is for and why we are elected as representatives. For that reason, I am glad that Mr Smyth has given me the opportunity to speak on the topic.
The Greens have put on the record their appreciation of the Chief Minister’s act of making public the federal government’s draft legislation on counter-terrorism. All legislation should go through a period of public consultation commensurate with its social, political and environmental impact, which suggests that this legislation, with its far-reaching implications for our democracy and human rights, should be thoroughly discussed and investigated and its implications understood before it is voted into law.
Apparently, the Prime Minister and his colleagues intended to launch the legislation upon us on the day it was to enter the parliament, fearful perhaps that the more people knew about it the less they would like it. The federal government treads a fine line between fuelling and then capitalising on people’s fear of threat from terrorism, despite the fact that so far there have been no direct threats to people or places within Australia, and growing concern about the impact of the government itself, especially after it gained a majority in the Senate last July.
Mr Stanhope’s act shows the importance of state and territory governments in the new political landscape. Nothing reveals it more starkly than the proposed new laws to counter terrorism. We have heard the federal opposition leader, Kim Beazley, say that the legislation as outlined by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago did not go far enough, indicating that there would be no detailed scrutiny or critique to be found there. The Greens and the Democrats do not have the numbers in the Senate to vote the legislation down or insist that it be debated in the House of Representatives.
Apparently, no doubt much to his annoyance, Howard needs the agreement of states and territories to enact this legislation. This gives Labor-led state and territory governments the potential to be the real opposition to the federal government. Today, I urge this territory government to stand its ground, to build on the immense support that the Chief Minister has gained from his initial action, and to try to bring the other Labor governments along with it. All fair-minded Australians would be better informed and better off if Mr Stanhope followed up his initial bold actions with deep scrutiny of the legislation.
Let us look again at the process. When the Labor premiers met a few weeks ago, with the security alert still at medium but with the population alarmed and leading lawyers struggling to have their warnings heard, they did sign on the dotted line to legislation they had yet to see. I, like many Australians, was very concerned about that. In fact, we did not know until last Friday, when Mr Stanhope made this legislation public, what would be in those bills, what Canberra really plans and what the promises of safeguards given at the meeting actually mean. We know also that some of the Liberal backbenchers in the federal parliament are concerned and that, in the end, may be where the opposition is that makes a difference
Members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .