Page 822 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: I would like to take the opportunity initially to thank the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs for its work on the inquiry into the exposure draft of the Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Bill 2005. Last month the committee produced a comprehensive report during a very short period of time, some of which was over the Christmas holiday period. In general the committee regarded the measures in the exposure draft as both necessary and proportionate, based on expert evidence on the threat to the ACT and the protections incorporated into the draft bill to ensure consistency with the Human Rights Act. In particular, it said that preventative detention for 14 days was a proportionate response to the threat of terrorism in the ACT.
The report contained 36 recommendations. Of these recommendations the government has agreed to 10, agreed in part to four, agreed in principle to two, not agreed to 10 and noted 10. The committee drew attention to the short period of the detention, the preconditions for making preventative detention orders, the central role of the Supreme Court, the information that must be given to detainees, the availability of compensation and the entrenchment of international human rights standards in the safeguards contained in the draft bill. In this way the committee recognised the obligations arising out of the COAG communique and that it was possible to integrate human rights standards with counter-terrorism measures. It noted that many of the provisions in the draft bill had been modelled on the best parts of the legislation in other jurisdictions. It also observed that the combination of those provisions and the additional human rights protections distinguished the ACT from the other states.
During the public hearings conducted by the committee on the exposure draft, some comment was made by contributors about inconsistencies between the ACT’s bill and those of the commonwealth and other states. During my appearance before the committee I made two observations in response to those comments. I will repeat those observations today. By and large, those inconsistencies are a consequence of the fact that the ACT has consciously sought to draft laws that comply with our human rights obligations and consistency with the rule of law. It is a mark of how far we as a nation seem to be straying from our democratic traditions and the rule of law that a government can be criticised for seeking to uphold basic fundamental rights and respect for the rule of law. Once upon a time, governments were pilloried for seeking to undermine human rights and the rule of law.
My second observation is that the provisions of the ACT bill draw on the best, fairest and most human rights-compliant provisions contained in the equivalent complementary legislation of the states. We have gathered together the best of the best. This is not extraordinary or on-the-edge legislation; it is in fact model legislation—quite sober legislation. I was interested to hear during the hearings that, while the AFP commissioner was keen to label the ACT’s bill as unacceptable in a number of respects, in response to a question from a member of the committee he said that there was little need to engage in, or comment upon, the complementary legislation of other jurisdictions, on the grounds that those laws differed so little from the commonwealth’s template.
As I have explained, virtually every provision in the ACT’s model exposure draft drew on provisions from other states. If we are exposed, as described by Commissioner Keelty, then so is every other state. As I told the committee, I suspect that the real reason for the lack of commentary on those other legislative packages has more to do with the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .