Page 4578 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It also extends the responsibility of police in releasing a child from a preventative detention order once the officer has concluded that the person is a child. Currently the officer must simply release the child. The amendment in this bill requires the officer to arrange for a police escort of the child to his or her home or arrange for a person with parental responsibility to collect the child or, as a matter of last resort, simply release the child. The officer must inform the Director-General of the Community Services Directorate that the child has been released.
In the broader sense, the bill also inserts a note to the effect that a preventative detention order that is set aside by the Supreme Court ceases to be valid. The implication is that the person held under an order must be released immediately.
Secondly, the bill removes an ambiguity in relation to special powers to enter and search premises. Currently the act, on one hand, requires a police officer to inform the person of the reason for the action and, if not in uniform, to show identification. On the other hand, the officer must only take this action if asked to do so by the person. The bill makes it clear that it is a requirement and not an option for the police officer to provide this information.
Finally, under the act a person may request from the Chief Police Officer a statement that an enter and search action was conducted in accordance with the act. The bill places a reasonable time test on the CPO to provide the statement or to provide a written statement explaining why the requested statement cannot be provided.
As one might expect, the act engages significant human rights provisions. I note there is extensive discussion in the explanatory statement justifying the engagement on proportional grounds. In essence, the argument is that this legislation is designed to protect the human rights of the community at large and that the rights of persons involved in terrorism activity are secondary to those of members of the broader community.
The explanatory statement also notes the special and therefore relatively more vulnerable position of the ACT as the national capital and the host for the diplomatic community. Nonetheless, there is discussion on the impact of this legislation on the rights of persons engaged or accused of engaging in terrorism activities. In addressing those issues, the amendments made in this bill create more clarity and certainty. Thus they reduce the risks of laws being held invalid on the grounds of vagueness or over-broadness.
It is appropriate to consider the bill in the context of the terrorist attacks in the United States 10 years ago and in Bali in October 2002 where Australia suffered loss in those attacks. Australia suffered further from the attacks in Bali in 2005. These events, along with the so-called war on terror, principally in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Australia’s peace-keeping efforts in East Timor will serve to underscore the need to be vigilant.
Australia itself has largely been free of terrorist attacks but that in no way diminishes the need to be prepared to act swiftly. Australia and Canberra in particular are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video