Page 1340 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
You might add, of course, that it is the seat of military and Australian Federal Police power as well. The article quotes Mr Keelty again as telling the committee:
Let’s not forget the ACT has been the target of a planned terrorist attack before.
It continues:
In 2004, Perth man Jack Roach was sentenced to nine years’ jail after pleading guilty to conspiring with terror groups Jemaah Islamiyah and al-Qaeda to bomb the Israeli embassy in Canberra.
To quote the Chief Minister, as this newspaper does:
But ACT Chief Minister and Attorney-General Jon Stanhope said almost all of the provisions in the ACT’s Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Bill were based on provisions found in interstate and Commonwealth legislation.
Mr Stanhope said, according to that article:
It is simply wrong to suggest the rest of the country is following a single path, with the ACT somehow isolating itself.
What a naive statement. The article goes on to say:
Australia’s new regime of anti-terrorism laws has two components, with the Federal Government and all state counterparts enacting complementary legislation. The Commonwealth’s laws legislate for control orders—where terrorism suspects can be placed under house arrest, banned from going to work or from using the telephone or Internet for up to a year, all without charge—as well as an expanded definition of sedition. The ACT’s proposed anti-terrorism laws, like those of every other state and territory, will legislate for preventive detention orders—where terrorism suspects can be held without charge for up to 14 days if an attack is considered imminent—and increased police stop, search and cease powers.
But here is the rub, and this is the issue that the Canberra Times really seized upon. They say:
But the “tests” which police must satisfy in order to apply for a preventive detention order are much higher in the ACT than other jurisdictions.
The paper goes on to say:
Under the proposed ACT laws, a senior police officer must be satisfied that detaining a person is “reasonable and necessary” to prevent a terrorist attack to apply to the Supreme Court for a preventive detention order. Under the NSW and Commonwealth laws, police only need to be satisfied—
only need to be satisfied—
that a preventive detention order “would substantially assist” in preventing a terrorist act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .