Page 1345 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
combating terrorism. I add to that the thoughts of Mr Paul O’Sullivan, who is Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and another laudable source of information on terrorism. In a speech in Sydney Mr O’Sullivan commented:
Our legislative framework previously was focused on the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators after an attack rather than on the act of preparing for, or supporting others engaged in, terrorist acts.
This is the significant difference between the ways the law enforcement agencies are attempting to tackle this issue. He continued:
The Parliament has put in place a legislative framework that better reflects the circumstances of the current security environment.
We are not dealing with people who play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, and we need to ensure that the appropriate agencies are equipped to head off terrorist attacks rather than be convinced that we can successfully prosecute perpetrators after the event when the damage is already done. We saw what happened on the subways in London on two occasions. Ask those people what they think about this advocacy of human rights in the context of terrorism. They would much prefer that the authorities are equipped to adequately head off these attacks.
To go back to Mr O’Sullivan: he has said publicly on a number of occasions that Australians and Australian interests are at threat and will continue to be so for some time. He said:
Planning for attacks in Australia has been detected and disrupted but a terrorist attack in Australia remains feasible and could well occur, possibly without warning.
Our own experience and that of other countries with the threat of terrorism in particular shows that those who would do harm are persistent, resourceful, capable and committed. As a result we need to be even more persistent, determined, resourceful and innovative if we are to stay ahead of the challenge.
Mr Stefaniak’s bill is all about ensuring that the authorities are adequately resourced and capable of taking on these threats to our way of life.
Having a law existing in one of Australia’s states and territories that is noticeably different from the others, indeed from that of the commonwealth, is both inefficient and dangerous. It creates legal opportunities for those who would seek to represent the individuals who are the targets of this legislation. We do not want to contemplate a scenario where terrorists have selected civilian targets according to the laws governing that state or territory because it makes neutralising the threat more difficult or catching the perpetrators more cumbersome or intervening in their planning more difficult.
Firstly, Mr Stefaniak correctly points out that Mr Stanhope’s bill makes the tests required to satisfy court approval before a terrorist suspect is apprehended and detained more stringent and unreasonable than anywhere else in this country, so stringent in fact that they may prove to overly impede rather than assist the work of law enforcement officials. Surely in the interests of speed and efficiency, which are paramount in combating
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .