Page 1542 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Corbell: That is the case for everything else we do.
MR PRATT: You are right, minister. That is currently the case for domestic crime and domestic law and order. But we are talking about—and I say to you again what I said the other day—a different level of crime. We are talking about a national-interest, terrorist-threat bag of criminal activity, and the stakes are much, much higher. The time fuse to be able to respond to and intervene in the commission of this sort of crime is so much shorter. There is not the same amount of time that the police in this country currently have in policing their communities against the background of garden-variety domestic crime. And that is the point. That is why new legislation is being enacted across this country. The point of Mr Stefaniak’s amendments is that this is a different playing field.
The application of the tests that police undertake to determine whether they will detain somebody for 14 days needs to be part of that national benchmark. Preventative detention is a very, very serious decision for police to take, and we would maintain that the testing should be made against a national benchmark and that the testing needs to be consistent.
What is the primary purpose of the police taking a decision to use preventative detention? In many circumstances it is to avoid taking chances in the community in highly dangerous circumstances when the facts are not clear about what is going on. We are talking about circumstances in which police do not want to take any chances when, on reasonable grounds, they are concerned about a potential threat, the truth is unknown and investigations are continuing. If they have to make perhaps the regrettable decision to detain somebody on the basis of those high-risk concerns, then they need the power to be able to do so.
Let me refer to a case that has occurred in the last 24 hours in this country, which I believe illustrates the point I am making. Without going into the details of the case or prejudicing the case—and I am talking here in general terms only—I refer to the arrest in Queensland overnight of Mr Amundsen who, it is alleged, may have been making some bombs. It is alleged. Thank God, the magistrate did not give him bail in this particular case because—this is now on the public record—the police have said that the nature of what they found on this man’s property was sufficient to level five blocks. The nature of the—
Mr Corbell: He was charged with an offence. It is entirely different.
MR SPEAKER: Order! This is a matter before the courts, Mr Pratt, and there are some rights assigned to people about whom allegations have been made. You should be very careful about referring to that matter.
MR PRATT: I understand, Mr Speaker. I am referring to what is in the public arena now.
MR SPEAKER: Order! That is of no import here.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .