Page 1585 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(3) The end time for any other preventative detention order must be—
(a) no later than 7 days after the person is first detained under the order; and
(b) no later than 14 days after the person is first taken into custody and detained, or detained, under any preventative detention order, or corresponding preventative detention order, for the same terrorist act.
Amendment No 13 would omit clause 21 (3) (a). The ACT legislation is quite different from other states’ legislation, certainly the New South Wales and commonwealth legislation, in that we have an additional provision that requires that the end time for a preventative detention order, other than an interim order, must be no later than seven days after the person is first detained.
Clause 21 (3) (b) provides that the end time for any preventative detention order is 14 days from the time a person is taken into custody. That is common right across the states and territories. Of course, it was the intention of COAG that 14 days would be the maximum. There is no problem there. But we do seem to be the only place with another step, and that is that a person can be detained for up to seven days, but, to extend the period to 14 days, it is necessary to go back to the court to have the order reviewed and, if appropriate, extended.
I would see that as being unnecessarily cumbersome. There seems to be ample provision here for a court to detain persons up to, and no longer than, 14 days. There might be a requirement to detain someone for maybe a couple of days only. There might be no need to go beyond that. But that additional step of having two time frames, a seven-day period with a return to court to make it a full 14 days, if need be, seems to be an unnecessary additional step. Again, that is where we are different from the other states and territories.
I think it is needlessly complex. It would be very time consuming for the police and the courts. It might even be somewhat disruptive for the would-be terrorists themselves! There is any number of complications in the provision. There are ample provisions in terms of ensuring that a proper time frame, be it for an interim order or an order that might become a bit more than interim, is actually ordered by a court.
The fundamental principle, as enunciated by COAG, is that no-one is to be detained longer than the 14 days. COAG envisioned up to 14 days, a 14-day period. To chop it into chunks like this we think is inefficient, time consuming, probably very costly and may well have other ramifications, unnecessary and unforeseen, which might be problematic as well. Accordingly, to bring us into line with the other states and territories, we would seek to omit this subclause.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (4.44): The government will not be supporting Mr Stefaniak’s amendment. The reason for that is that this provision that provides for a preventative detention order to be reviewed after a seven-day period is an appropriate safeguard and check to ensure that the preventative detention order is still warranted.
This is consistent with the approach adopted, for example, in the United Kingdom. Obviously the United Kingdom have a lot more experience with preventing and dealing with terrorist threats. They have an approach that allows for this check after a period of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .