Page 1212 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
reject that analysis absolutely. In my evidence, I described the prospect of Osama bin Laden directing his operatives to do a comparative search and analysis of legislation throughout Australia and the western world to see how powers vested in the police might be used to identify possible terrorist targets.
The position Commissioner Keelty put was that terrorists would do a comparative analysis of different legislation—people perhaps proposing to engage in suicide attacks or people determined to blow up buildings—before engaging in suicide attacks. An attack would, of course, kill them. The essential proposition is that a suicide bomber would, before determining his target, get all the Australian legislation—the laws of the ACT, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania; do an analysis to see which one of the laws provided the least chance of a suicide bomber being arrested and pursued by the law; and choose a target on that basis.
I politely described that essential proposition as preposterous. I never hesitate to say that, despite the differences of opinion aired through that Assembly process, and despite the differences of opinion aired yesterday and today between Commissioner Keelty, the minister for police and me, I have the highest regard for Commissioner Keelty. To suggest that I have in some way belittled him or attacked him personally simply denies the enormously high regard in which I hold Commissioner Keelty. Some of my regard of course goes back to Commissioner Keelty’s other expressed and honestly held opinion that the participation by Australia in the invasion of Iraq rendered Australia—
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: Let us talk about some other expressions of opinion by Commissioner Keelty. Commissioner Keelty is on the public record—very publicly on the record—as expressing a firm opinion that the participation by Australia in the invasion of Iraq rendered Australia more susceptible to and more attractive as a terrorist target. We recall the response of the Prime Minister to Commissioner Keelty’s suggestion. Commissioner Keelty was required to publicly retract. As head of the Australian Federal Police, Commissioner Keelty expressed an opinion that the involvement of Australia in the invasion of Iraq made Australia far more likely to be targeted for attack by terrorists. The Prime Minister required of him a public recanting of his position.
I have not required any such thing of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; I simply expressed an opinion contrary to his opinion. Shock, horror! A politician disagrees with a policeman. Shock, horror! How dare a politician disagree with a policeman? Why is it that when a politician disagrees with a policeman it is a personal attack? It was a simple disagreement.
MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Chief Minister, how can public servants appearing before Assembly committees—particularly the new one we are going to be seeing this year—be assured that they can give frank and fearless advice without fear of personal ridicule from the ACT’s Chief Minister?
MR STANHOPE: I have never attacked public servants for any evidence they have given before any committee. I support absolutely and encourage public servants to be honest and forthright—in fact, the law requires it of them—in their appearances before
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .