Page 1346 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
terrorism, we should be aiming for legislation that makes the job of law enforcement officials easier.
We have heard Mr Keelty quoted. Anyone who knows him would realise that he is a very sensible and balanced leader. He is not some latter-day J Edgar Hoover who is desperately trying to accumulate power. Mr Keelty is respected in the entire South East Asian region as an authority on these matters. Whilst one does not always automatically accept police perspective, on the basis of his experience and his bilateral work in the region, we ought to give considerable regard to the view he has expressed that these changes are required to enable his officers and the related security agencies take appropriate steps to head off potential terrorist attacks.
Secondly, the sunset clause attached to this legislation should be in line with best practice in other states and territories and in the commonwealth generally, and that is 10 years, with a review period after five. In the government’s legislation, the ACT’s sunset clause is set at only five years. Mr Stefaniak’s bill brings the ACT in line with the rest of Australia by proposing 10 years.
Thirdly, in the government’s legislation, the Supreme Court may make a periodic detention order on the basis that it is “reasonable and necessary”. However, such an order must also be deemed to be the least restrictive means to prevent a terrorist act or the only effective way to preserve evidence. This is a very difficult and cumbersome test for law enforcement officials to satisfy and will overly burden the efficiency and effectiveness of their work.
Mr Stefaniak’s proposal simplifies this process and adopts the detention requirements used in New South Wales, where they have a Labor government, and other jurisdictions, ensuring uniformity and efficiency in dealing with suspected terrorists. These impediments using descriptions such as “least restrictive means to prevent a terrorist act” leave too many opportunities for advocates to prevent the full apprehension of individuals who may be contemplated as being involved in potential terrorist activity.
In addition, periodic detention orders apply to children between 16 and 18 years of age in legislation across the country. In the ACT, however, it would only apply to people 18 years and older. How extraordinarily naive, incredibly naive, on the part of this Chief Minister, to believe that that is reasonable? We must not pursue any further people under the age of 18. Pick up the court notices every day. People do not go through a stage of innocence and naivety until they are 18 years of age.
As Mr Stefaniak and Mr Pratt pointed out, young people are recruited in matters of terrorism. We see it on our television screens every week. We have seen some horrific examples in the Middle East of suicide bombers and the like. I can assure you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that this is not a case of there being a qualifying age before people embark on these terrible crimes. We have to ensure that there is appropriate legal framework for the authorities to intercept potential terrorist acts well before they occur, to prevent disruption to our lifestyle and to prevent injury to the citizens of this territory and, indeed, to our guests at the diplomatic missions.
It is interesting that the Supreme Court can only grant interim preventative detention orders for 24 hours, compared to the 48 hours enjoyed in all other Australian
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .