Page 326 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the AFP and other jurisdictions in conducting counterterrorism operations. In referring to powers sought, the commissioner said:
The proposed extended powers are necessary to increase the AFP’s capacity to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond effectively to attacks in a way that is consistent with police in all jurisdictions in Australia. The AFP believes that this bill does not enable us to do that.
He and his colleagues went on to indicate that they had particular concerns in relation to different standards of proof being required for the AFP to establish a case for preventative detention orders before the ACT Supreme Court. The standards of proof required are much higher than those anywhere else in Australia. The commissioner indicated that in a number of areas the New South Wales legislation was a much more suitable model than the ACT legislation. Also on 31 January 2006, I asked the commissioner the following question:
From what you say, from an AFP point of view would it be simpler if, say, the ACT simply adopted the New South Wales legislation and introduced that?
The commissioner replied:
It would be. That would be a way forward. I understand why there might be a difference of opinion on certain issues, but I think in this bill we do need to have consistency. If ever I have seen people with the intent, motivation and capability to do something catastrophic, it is the terrorists. Let us not forget, chair—I mean this in a respectful way—that the ACT has been the target of a planned terrorist attack. There is a person … in Western Australia who pleaded guilty to the planned bombing of the Israeli embassy here in Canberra just prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The fact that that person pleaded guilty is something that the committee ought to take note of. Canberra is a target.
Mr Gentleman asked a question of the commissioner—I pay tribute to Mr Gentleman, who attended all the hearings as a non-committee member—whose reply was as follows:
The reasons for terrorist attacks are many and varied and there is nothing that will make us immune from them. This is a really important point about why we need consistency in the legislation across Australian jurisdictions, particularly for the ACT; that we don’t by default cause ourselves to be the subject of a terrorist attack because the police don’t have the right powers.
The commissioner was concerned that terrorists, like international criminals, do not take note of jurisdictional impediments to their activities. If our bill were to be weaker than those of other jurisdictions, this could well be a factor. I note that this view was not accepted by other people. I refer again to the commissioner’s qualifications as an expert in this field which, with the greatest respect, no other person who appeared before the committee could demonstrate. That being said, I recommend that the ACT government adopt the New South Wales legislation. I make that recommendation for the reasons I have just stated, along with the commissioner’s comments. When the ACT Human Rights Office gave evidence, they also indicated that the New South Wales act was the next best act in respect of human rights and other considerations. So it seems that, if that is the case, it would indeed be a good template or model.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .