Page 1545 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
indicating that is what sophisticated terrorists may well do. Mr Corbell himself concedes, as we all know, that at any rate the ACT, the seat of federal power, is an obvious target.
I remind the minister that organised crime shops around. We have seen in Canberra in recent times some facts and figures which indicate that there is a lot of drug activity. There is probably more drug activity in certain drugs like ice and ecstasy than in other parts of the country. There are organised gangs who come up here from Sydney, for a number of reasons. There is a ready market; it is easy to access; you do not have to travel too far; we are seen as an easy touch; our laws are different from interstate laws; the courts are seen as an easy touch, not much happens if you get caught; again, it is a good market. People shop around.
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Stefaniak is reflecting on the courts in quite an inappropriate way by suggesting that the courts are an easy touch. It is quite inappropriate and disorderly and he should not reflect on the judiciary in that manner.
MR STEFANIAK: No, I am not.
Mr Corbell: You should withdraw it, Mr Stefaniak.
MR STEFANIAK: No. I refer you to standing orders, Mr Corbell. I will move on. That is probably the easiest. The point I am making is that organised crime—
MR SPEAKER: I will have to refer to the Hansard, because I did not hear exactly what he said, Mr Corbell.
MR STEFANIAK: Organised crime shops around, and you must take heed of that particular fact. You must take heed too, I submit, of what experts like Commissioner Keelty say on that. Your arguments on that are quite wrong and perhaps even facile, in that it is a nonsense to say that sophisticated criminals and sophisticated terrorists are not going to check out things like legislative differences between places. There are obviously a lot of other known factors as well. But to say that is simply not a factor is wrong. I back Commissioner Keelty’s opinion that he gave to members of the government here.
In terms of the unique nature of these types of laws and the fact that they are detention and are not after someone is charged, of course the opposition recognises that. Morris Iemma, Mr Bracks and Mr Beattie obviously recognised that. Yet when you look, for example, at the law over the border in New South Wales, which is exactly what I am basing these amendments on, they have not got any particular problem at all in having effective laws, reasonably strong laws, with checks and balances in them. All you have to do is read my bill, which is basically the New South Wales law, to see the checks and balances there.
At the same time, you should not hamstring the law enforcement authorities in terms of being able to go to court and seek the detention of a person because they might be committing a terrorist act or seek their detention so that evidence cannot be destroyed. There are checks and balances within their legislation. So it is a nonsense to say that what we are proposing is unreasonable. It is eminently reasonable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .