Page 1339 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But then after appearing on television, exiting white-faced from a frank and fearless three hours briefing given to him by ASIO and other authorities on the federal counter-terrorism laws, Mr Stanhope unexpectedly and dramatically made a last-minute turnaround and supported the federal legislation, much to the surprise of his socialist-set supporters. Whatever it was that frightened Mr Stanhope during that ASIO briefing has now been forgotten by him—perhaps another unindexed memory lapse, it would appear—because, by tabling his new bill, he is weakening the federal government’s laws and opening up the ACT’s laws to potential terrorists once again.
I highlight the yawning gaps in the Stanhope legislation and the yawning gaps between this legislation and that which we see in other jurisdictions, including the commonwealth, by referring to Commissioner Keelty’s warnings to this government, as expressed to a committee of this place and as expressed at other venues. I also demonstrate the Canberra Times’ analysis of that warning given by Mr Keelty and their analysis of the juxtaposition between the position of this Chief Minister of this government and that position taken by Mr Keelty and other national authorities. I refer to a Canberra Times article dated 1 February, in which they said:
Canberra will be the most vulnerable city in Australia to terrorist attack because of flaws in the ACT Government’s anti-terrorism laws, Australia’s highest-ranking police officer said yesterday. Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty told a Legislative Assembly Legal Affairs Committee potential terrorists would look to exploit Canberra’s rights-conscious anti-terrorism laws and seek to plan and commit terrorist acts within ACT borders.
Quoting Keelty, the article continues:
“Canberra is a target,” he told the committee. “The more difference there is—
between laws in different jurisdictions—
the more vulnerable the ACT makes itself for exploitation.
Keelty goes on to say, according to this article:
We know criminals will exploit differences in legislation, they will go to wherever the weakest link in the legislation is.
The article goes on to say, quoting Mr Keelty again:
The ACT stands to be an island within the rest of Australia if its legislation is not consistent with the other jurisdictions that surround us.
The newspaper then goes on to say:
There was no current, specific threat to the ACT, but Mr Keelty said it would be naive to think that Canberra—as the seat of government as well as home to more than 90 diplomatic posts and institutions—could not be a terrorist target.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .