Page 327 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Failing the government’s acceptance of that, I recommend that the standard of proof required for the AFP to prove matters before the Supreme Court or any other tribunal should be the same as for New South Wales and other jurisdictions. I note that the committee’s recommendations 9 and 10 go some way to addressing this issue. I note also that the attorney and his officials were making some noises which indicated that the words “reasonably necessary” may well be quite reasonable. I stress that, if you cannot adopt something like the New South Wales act, you should at least make sure that the standards of proof are the same across jurisdictions. In no way should our standards of proof be more severe and restrictive on police than those of other jurisdictions. It is critically important to have as much uniformity as possible across jurisdictions for legislation as serious as this. We are dealing with the potential of hundreds, if not thousands, of lives being put at risk if the legislation is not consistent across all Australian jurisdictions. Some inconvenience through laws that restrict human rights is necessary to protect the fundamental right of all Australians—that is, the right to live. I think, on balance, that the laws enacted elsewhere are reasonable. I commend the abovementioned recommendations to the ACT government.
I made a number of other recommendations. For example, again for conformity with other laws, I thought we should have sunset clauses of 10 years with a review period after five years, but my two colleagues felt that the draft legislation should stand. I also questioned whether there is a constitutional issue as to whether the Supreme Court can be the issuing authority. You can get around that, again, if you adopt the New South Wales legislation, but, if the government were not to do that, I suggest it should err on the side of caution.
I recommend that the proposed legislation retain a role for the Supreme Court in relation to preventative detention orders but that senior police officers in the ACT be given the power to issue a 24-hour police order in urgent circumstances, with interim orders of 24 to 48 hours being required to be heard in the presence of the party in the Supreme Court. I understand that that would get us over any potential constitutional problems. If the government did not want to simply adopt the New South Wales legislation, I recommend that it adopt that position. It would also mirror commonwealth legislation. I recommend that clauses 14 (2), 15 (2), 16 (2), 19 (2) be amended so that information that is likely to prejudice national security is excluded from information to be given to a prescribed person. I make a number of other recommendations in my dissenting report—noting the time—which I commend to the government.
MS MacDONALD (Brindabella) (10.47): Subject to the COAG agreement of 27 September 2005, the ACT government agreed to enact legislation to strengthen counterterrorism laws. It was agreed that such laws should be necessary, effective against terrorism and contain appropriate safeguards against abuse. These elements, as they relate to the ACT Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Bill 2005 will be discussed in turn. First, the ACT Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Bill 2005 before the Assembly is necessary. Several submissions to the legal affairs committee opposed the introduction of the bill, arguing that the need for the proposed legislation had not been demonstrated and that current laws were adequate to deal with terrorism. Several submissions noted that a warrant and prosecution-led response to terrorism urging existing criminal law was preferable to preventative detention.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .