Page 1358 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and they fit in with attacks on any church leader that dares not reflect the government’s compassionless world view.
It is depressingly familiar to witness the way in which any view in the media or in public discourse which does not accord with the views or interests of the ruling party is labelled as biased, political, subjective or even seditious. And what defines big “L” liberal values these days? Will they defend to the death our right to express views contrary to theirs? Yes, some will, and strength to their arm, but recent preselection battles in Victoria indicate that their hold is tenuous.
My vote on these bills is already well known. I am in the fortunate position of being able to vote according to my conscience, according to my knowledge and according to my party’s stance. I know that not everyone else in this house is comfortable with the way they have to vote. I commend Mr Berry on saying so and I sympathise with those who are in a position where they cannot follow their conscience.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (12.15): I would like to begin by thanking all members for their contribution to this important debate today. Can I perhaps paint a picture for members that I think vividly illustrates why the government has adopted the approach it has in relation to this legislation. Imagine a country where a woman is found wandering in a remote rural location. She cannot tell police who she is or where she comes from. As a consequence, she is jailed, detained without charge and is retained in detention for an extended period of time. In fact, it is only discovered after over a year that this woman is an Australia citizen, that she suffers from a mental illness and that she should not be in detention at all.
Imagine a country where another Australian woman from a non-English-speaking background is also detained without charge. Not only is she detained but she is also forcibly expelled from Australia. She is an Australian citizen and it is later discovered that she also suffers from a mental illness and has had an enormous injustice done to her. These are two examples of how the lack of adequate safeguards and protections can impinge dramatically and in wholly unacceptable ways on the rights and liberties of Australian citizens. The Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon cases should be well known to all members. But in my mind they are a telling and exemplary reminder of the dangers and risks associated with diving headfirst into a willingness to embrace any form of detention measures without appropriate safeguards.
We have heard the commentary from members opposite in relation to the importance of relying upon the advice and the expertise of intelligence agencies and police forces. Indeed, any responsible government should have due and proper regard for the expertise and advice that is offered by people in those important positions of responsibility. This government does that, but it does it cognisant of its understanding of a failure of intelligence and police organisations. These organisations are not infallible. They are not the fonts of all knowledge. They have an important and, indeed, vital role to play in protecting public security and safety but they are not infallible.
Witness the failure to properly advise Western democracies across the world on the threat posed by Iraq or, indeed, the absence of threat posed by Iraq. And witness the failure of our own intelligence agencies to detect and save a boatload of refugees coming
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .