Page 330 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
effective piece of legislation. We consulted with people in the community and those who consider themselves to be stakeholders in this process uphold that view as well.
Fourth, the committee notes at recommendation 9—the standard of proof and threshold test in clauses 17, 19, 21, 25 and 29—that the words “reasonable and necessary” should be replaced with “reasonably necessary” so that the test is not so onerous. The AFP advised the committee that consistency in fundamental threshold questions is important between jurisdictions, especially between the ACT and New South Wales. As it is currently worded, the legislation may lead to a situation in which a member of a terrorist organisation is eligible for detention in New South Wales but co-conspirators in the ACT cannot be detained due to the higher threshold test being applied to the same facts or intelligence by the court. Mr Speaker, there was a little bit of misrepresentation of my stance with regard to that last week in the Canberra Times when you circulated this report. With regard to that, the Attorney-General appeared before the committee on 1 February. In response to this issue, the ACT Attorney-General, Mr Stanhope, said he would take advice on the issues arising from the language ‘reasonable and necessary’.
That is referred to in the report at clause 2.28. He acknowledged that he and his department would look into the issues raised by this. Finally, in my dissenting remarks, I rejected the committee’s endorsement of recommendation 12, which reads as follows:
The Committee recommends that the proposed legislation be applied to persons 16 years of age or older, but that safeguards such as separation from adult detainees … and special contact provisions for family members and oversight agencies be included in the legislation.
Under the ACT Legislation Act 2001 a child is defined as a person under the age of 18 years. This is the default position under the bill, and many submissions agreed with this standard. However, a number noted that children under the age of 18 are just as capable of criminal responsibility and should also fall under the scope of this bill. I believe Mr Stefaniak has put this as his reasoning for supporting this clause. Dr Foskey’s reasons are different and I am sure she will explain those.
My dissenting comments noted that offences committed by persons under the age of 18 under this bill should be dealt with by other legislation. Such an approach is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children between the ages of 16 and 18 are often at their most vulnerable and impressionable. If involved in a terrorist attack, they are likely to be psychologically unsound and should not fall under the scope of the proposed legislation. Detaining a child for a maximum period of 14 days would be a traumatic experience—even if they were over the age of 18. Courtrooms alone have been shown to be distressing for children. Alternative arrangements should be made to deal with offences committed by children.
In conclusion, I believe that the government has attempted to achieve—and in the main has achieved—another tool for the Australian Federal Police in their fight against terrorism which will attempt to protect the greater public where it is needed, where they cannot utilise existing legislation because there is not enough evidence and where they seriously believe there is a chance of a terrorist attack happening. But it still maintains and protects human rights. I believe that the exposure draft bill has done that in the main, although I think it needs minor tweaking. The recommendations in the report are for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .