Page 1594 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is good legislation. It is legislation that protects community safety, gives the police and the courts the powers needed to respond to threats around terrorist activity and does so in a way that also has regard for individual liberties and individual rights. It is landmark and model legislation in that regard, and the government is proud to put it to the Assembly today.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (5.17): I take my second bite on this amendment issue and pick up on a couple of points made by Mr Corbell. Firstly, we are strongly concerned about Mr Corbell’s concerns that the 10-year time frame, which is the national norm and the standard applying everywhere else, is cut short not so much for legalistic reasons but because it is the human rights interest that seems to predominate here. As we have seen all the way through this debate, the human rights factor has been very much an overriding, determining factor in the way the government has designed and shaped this legislation.
I would remind the government that many wise people in this world, and in this country, have said it is quite a right and proper thing for Australian citizens to sometimes give up or give in some of their civil liberties and their rights at times of risk or emergency. Of course we do that every day. Whenever you and I are pulled over onto the side of a road or pulled over by an RBT unit we are giving up a civil liberty—the right to move freely. We have always agreed that we will give up the right to move freely when the authorities ask us to stop for an RBT test. Why do we do that? We do that voluntarily because we know that there are people who behave badly and drive whilst alcohol-affected.
I am using a very simple example but it is greater beyond that. In wartime our fathers and mothers gave up lots of rights and civil liberties in the national interest. The governments of this country are asking that we all bear that in mind when they impose these new laws. Every state in this country, one other territory and the feds have been able to get that point across successfully. But here in the ACT we see a government which, as I said earlier, puts the Human Rights Act on the highest pedestal and uses that as the benchmark to test where this new piece of legislation is going.
Contrary to what Mr Corbell said before lunch, the opposition is absolutely supportive of the idea that human rights must be a consideration in the shaping of this law. But we have always said that it should not override the sensible design and application of this law, which is designed to protect our community. The foremost duty of government is to protect its citizens, not always to cave in to civil rights requirements.
Secondly, the most important right we have is the protection of human life, not whether or not somebody may be detained unfairly. Mistakes will be made when decisions are taken about who will be detained but that is a risk that I think Australian society is willing to take. It is disappointing that this government has watered-down this legislation because of those sorts of overriding factors.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .