Page 1541 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If the Assembly were to accept the Liberal Party’s amendments, Mr Stefaniak’s amendments, it would reduce the human rights compatibility of this legislation; it would undermine the obligations we all have, not just the citizens of the ACT but the citizens of Australia, to abide by our international human rights obligations; and it would do so without any demonstrable reason. There is no evidence to suggest that a lower threshold will achieve anything greater than the threshold test that is proposed by the government. There is nothing, there is no evidence to suggest that.
The government does not support these amendments. This is a threshold issue. This is the central issue, and the government believes that what is in the legislation is the appropriate approach.
There is one other point I make. If there is a terrorist attack in Canberra, it will be because it is in Canberra; it will not be because of clauses in our legislation. The government does not accept the assertion that terrorists go jurisdiction shopping before they decide where they are going to undertake a terrorist attack. We all, I am sure, sincerely hope that we never see such an instance in our city, or indeed anywhere else for that matter. But it is a very significant leap of logic to say that terrorists go jurisdiction shopping, peruse legislation and then decide where they are going to undertake a terrorist attack. It is not an assertion the government agrees with.
The approach reflecting the government’s bill is proportionate, and “proportionate” is an important requirement. That is consistent with the COAG decision that it be a proportionate response—not an over-the-top, let’s-go-for-it response—that has regard to our obligations as elected representatives and governments to protect both community safety and the rights and liberties of individual citizens in our community. Both of those things must be had regard to in a proportionate response. Mr Stefaniak’s amendments are not a proportionate response.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (11.52): I rise to support Mr Stefaniak’s amendments and to address a couple of issues raised by Minister Corbell. Firstly, in the interests of ACT Policing operations and ensuring that our ACT police force has the same consistent national benchmarks to operate by as other police forces in this country, I call upon the minister to support Mr Stefaniak’s amendments.
Mr Stefaniak is seeking to ensure that the ACT jurisdictional, justice and policing environment is the same as everywhere else in this country. I remind the government again that our police will often be operating in, shall we say, a cross-border environment. They have to be able to operate hand-in-glove with the New South Wales police force. ACT community police also need to operate hand-in-glove with AFP national policing operations. Therefore, it is important that they have the same clear-cut benchmarks and the same instruments of power, otherwise you will have a sea of some confusion. The government would serve our police better if it made sure that the operational playing field, so to speak, was consistent.
Another consideration is that police have to be trained to carry out these measures. What is happening at present? Are there different types of standards and applications in the training of AFP national, ACT community policing and New South Wales police? I know that is currently the case with—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .