Page 1353 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
saying that the ACT’s proposed laws make it too difficult for police to enact preventative detention measures where they suspect a person might be planning to commit an act of terrorism. Commissioner Keelty says that any weakness in the ACT laws could actually make Canberra a bigger terrorism target.
I know that the Chief Minister ridiculed those statements, and that is unfortunate, but I think the average person would have much more faith in what Mr Keelty says on this issue than in what the Chief Minister says. Mr Keelty is not politically pushing a particular barrow. I believe that Mr Keelty is speaking what he absolutely believes to be the truth based on his many, many years of experience in the area and based on the activities of the AFP and ASIO in tracking terrorist activities and seeking to prevent terrorist events in this country. So I think it is important that the views that Mr Keelty expressed and the significant concerns that he raised are not dismissed lightly.
I think Mr Stefaniak’s bill reflects that certainly we have more confidence in what people like Mr Keelty have to say and what the intelligence agencies have to say than what Mr Stanhope has to say. In fact, when Mr Stanhope was presented with the evidence at COAG he seemed to agree with it, but it was only when he went away and thought about it, and got his human rights advice, that he changed his mind.
I would now like to turn to some of the key differences between the opposition’s bill and the government’s bill. This has been covered very well by previous speakers, so I will not focus on it too much. But I will focus on a couple of key differences. The bill proposed by the opposition creates uniformity with the rest of the country, and the government’s bill does not. Mr Keelty has already highlighted the significance of that. Of course, once again the statement by Mr Keelty that this could make us a bigger terrorist target was ridiculed by the Chief Minister. I believe that just last week in this place Mr Stanhope was saying, “Well, you know, whatever legislation is there is not going to make any difference to a suicide bomber.” But, of course, that absolutely misses the point.
Terrorist organisations are not stupid. Experience has taught us that there are well organised, sophisticated terrorist organisations out there. It may well be that a factor in decisions made by those organisations will be whether they are likely to be hindered. If they think they are less likely to be hindered somewhere, of course that might play a part in the kind of decisions they make on terrorist attacks. It is ridiculous to completely dismiss that argument as not having any merit, and I think that is one of the significant things to consider.
Our bill recognises that age is not necessarily a variable in identifying threats. As Mr Mulcahy as identified, 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of committing terrorist acts. There is no doubt about that, and to suggest otherwise is naive. Our bill recognises the need to monitor communications from an identified threat, even under custody, and the government’s bill does not.
The key difference here is in relation to preventative detention orders. Mr Keelty thinks that the watering down of these provisions may actually make us a bigger terrorist threat than if we adopted what the commonwealth has. I have already raised that issue. Of course, under the ACT government legislation, the Supreme Court may only make a preventative detention order on the basis that it is reasonably necessary, the least
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .