Page 1548 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
mass-murder weaponry is discovered, or intelligence has been gathered that undiscovered weaponry is intended to be used, then preventative detention must be a clear option to police, and the test for the police to apply must be reasonable.
The point that I make is that this government’s test is not reasonable, and that is why Mr Stefaniak is calling for this government to allow his amendments to apply so that the test here for ACT police is the same as the test for all other police in every other jurisdiction. The intention is this: if the police think they have arrested accomplices but are not too sure who is who amongst those accomplices, they have to have the confidence and the ability to detain all the accomplices until they can get to the bottom of the matter. Mr Stefaniak is quite right: our preventative detention systems are humane and fair, and they will ensure that people who may be unreasonably detained will not be unfairly treated.
The other point that I go back to is the point about terrorists going shopping. What have terrorists been doing in Europe for the last 15 years? The European example is a great example in terms of the EU states and their comparative legal systems. Al-Qaeda operatives in Europe have very carefully selected which cities they base themselves in according to how effective the local laws and the police forces of those states are. Where the judicial systems are known to be liberal, then you will find al-Qaeda operatives, their sympathisers or their extremist logistical supporters, those who have good access to criminal systems to obtain all the things that need to be obtained such as false passports, explosive materials et cetera. Where they find that states are weak in their law, they will exploit them, and they do. That is on the public record too. I again recommend to this government that they go and read these references. We are in a new ball game here in Australia, and we need to look at the history of what has been happening in Europe and in South-East Asia now for a decade or more.
Going to the point made by Mr Corbell about why the opposition is always concerned with the application of the Human Rights Act in relation to the development of this law, the point that has to be made is this: the rights that are enshrined in the Human Rights Act here in the ACT may not be radical. I do not think we say that those human rights or those rights enshrined in the ACT Human Rights Act are radical; that is not the point. I agree with Mr Corbell; they are not radical.
This government has placed those human rights and the act itself up on a pedestal, through legislation. We find that the act or the application of human rights cuts across and impedes the sensible application of law combating very, very serious issues going to the heart of the terrorist threat. That is irresponsible of government. It is irresponsible that it would seem that the human rights provisions always come first when this government has a duty to develop reasonable law to make sure that it protects its community. We do not say that the Human Rights Act is radical or that the rights therein enshrined are radical, but when you put those on a pedestal and cut across the debate and the proper determination of sensible law, then perhaps you are using those rights irresponsibly. That is the default position that this government has continually cut back to.
We call upon the government to be a lot more sensible in how they develop this law and ensure that they are consistent with other Australian benchmarks and that, in the interest of ensuring that our police know what operational playing field they are playing on, they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .