Page 1592 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
eight or nine various acts in relation to detention, it is not the norm and it is a significant step—there needs to be a proportionate and effective response to that threat.
I would submit that the government has gone far too far maybe even in misinterpreting its own Human Rights Act. But if it has not, then I would say there is probably something wrong with the Human Rights Act in terms of placing far too great an emphasis on, or overemphasising, the rights of people who may be detained under this legislation—and I am talking would-be terrorists.
I am talking about where there may be a case where the authorities get it wrong. They have a pretty good track record in this country and in this territory, especially, of getting it right. I am talking about the very effective, very competent Australian Federal Police, who are in many respects the envy of other police forces around the country. They do not get things like this wrong terribly often. The worst that could happen is that someone could be wrongfully detained for a maximum of 14 days—and they have legal rights if that occurs—but at least they would be detained in a humane way.
We need to look at what is likely to happen if there are defects in this law. We on this side submit that there are some very noticeable and glaring defects when you compare it with New South Wales, the commonwealth and other states and territories. Look at what we are trying to prevent. We are trying to prevent anything from small-scale acts of terrorism that might injure or kill a handful of people through to, if some people got their hands on a nuclear bomb, something catastrophic.
It is very scary. We are dealing with some very well organised, dangerous people here. We are obviously not immune. I do not think for a minute that the Chief Minister, for example, has ever said we are immune. He was convinced that something had to be done at COAG. He got the briefing. I think it is very important that we get it right. It is very important that the response is indeed proportionate and recognises that there are infringements on some individuals’ rights, but the individuals likely to have their rights infringed upon are people who would do horrendous harm to us.
In our system their rights are still important and cannot be ignored, because we are a civilised country. But you cannot swing the pendulum so far that their rights take a disproportionate view and there is a disproportionate amount of effort in ensuring they are protected whilst ignoring that crucially important point in section 9 of our Human Rights Act—the right to live. Every Australian citizen has the right to live here. We are dealing with legislation pertaining to the territory. Every innocent man, woman or child who has never wanted to kill anyone in their lives or harm their society has the right to go about their lawful business knowing there is a place which will protect them, as far as any legislation can, from horrendous harm. COAG wanted people protected against that harm as far as possible. That has been enacted in other states and territories in a far better way, I think, than in this bill.
This bill has an overemphasis on the rights of would-be detainees who are accused of being would-be terrorists—people who have absolutely no regard for our human rights, who spurn the very idea of human rights to their fellow man and fellow woman. I think it is highly unfortunate that the bill I put on the table is going to go down and that this bill is going to get up unamended. I close on that by reiterating that one of the factors here is the sunset clause. For the reasons I have outlined and the reasons Mr Pratt has so capably enunciated, I think 10 years is a far better idea than five.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .