Page 2947 - Week 07 - Thursday, 30 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
reviewed their counter-terrorism legislative schemes have all recommended that they continue. The recommendations from our interstate counterparts to continue their acts were made despite the fact that, like the ACT, many of the jurisdictions have not exercised their powers in their counter-terrorism schemes.
Mr Speaker, I note the calls from the ACT Greens for the preparation of a full human rights compatibility statement to accompany this bill. Specifically, the Greens requested that a human rights analysis be conducted, with this analysis focusing on the current terrorism climate and the limitations, as described by section 28(2) of the Human Rights Act, that the bill places on those rights.
The government has completed this analysis, which appears in the explanatory statement for this bill. The explanatory statement considers in detail the proposal to extend the bill to 2016, the limitations that this proposal places on human rights, and the reasons why the continuation is a necessary and proportionate limitation on those rights.
The proportionality of the specific counter-terrorism measures in the Terrorism Act were extensively canvassed, and answered in the affirmative during the development and debate on the initial bill in 2005. For this reason, this material is not repeated in the explanatory statement for this bill.
At this point, I would like to remind members of the measures that the government undertook in the development of the Counter-Terrorism Act to ensure that we complied with our human rights obligations. From first instance, the territory determined that the paramount considerations for the counter-terrorism laws were protection of the community, our human rights obligations and the fundamental principles of justice. These principles are the rule of law, proportionality, respect for legal process and the separation of powers.
These considerations were in addition to those stated by the Council of Australian Governments. COAG recognised that any laws would be necessary, contain appropriate safeguards against abuse, be based on evidence and be proportionate.
During the development of the act, the government committed to robustly and transparently addressing the interaction of any counter-terrorism laws with the Human Rights Act. To honour this commitment, the government sought specialist human rights advice, which was tabled in the Assembly on 3 May 2006.
This advice is still relevant today because the nature and extent of the counter-terrorism measures created by the initial Terrorism Act have not changed. This bill will not make any substantive amendment to the Terrorism Act, nor to the preventative detention and special police power schemes that it creates.
The advice from Ms Kate Eastman, which was tabled, considered the interaction of the 2005 bill with the human rights to a fair trial, privacy, not to be arbitrarily detained and freedom of movement and assembly. It concluded that the bill satisfied the requirements of section 28(2) of the Human Rights Act, and was therefore compatible with the act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video