Page 392 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In the 10 years since the government introduced preventative detention, it has built on the concept, introducing further concepts such as indefinite detention for refugees who have a negative security assessment from ASIO. Fourteen days preventative detention is one thing. Imagine indefinite detention with no charge. As I say, it is reasonable to ask if extreme and unnecessary laws like preventative detention end up paving the way for further incursions into human rights and freedoms.
Another point worth considering is one raised by several in the community when a preventative detention order was used in Victoria, that is, the fact that detaining someone without charge risks community backlash which can negatively affect the relationship police have with community and social groups they rely on for information or assistance. A lot of community building between police and at-risk communities has occurred over many years, and using laws like preventative detention, which people see as unjust, can irreparably damage this relationship.
Lastly, of course, as I have emphasised, it is not just the fact that these laws are a test of our human rights principles. They are also unnecessary and ineffective. As Bret Walker said, the laws are much more trouble than they are worth, and in fact they are worse than useless.
Is this the type of scheme we want to continue in the ACT, a human rights jurisdiction and a jurisdiction that values making smart, modern and well thought out laws? I do not think so, and the Greens will not support this bill.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Capital Metro, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (10.55), in reply: Ever since the introduction of the Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Amendment Bill on 19 November 2015 the world has been rocked by acts of extremism. For example, in December last year 14 people were killed and 22 were seriously injured in a terrorist attack in San Bernadino, California. On 7 January this year 60 people were killed and 200 were injured in a suicide bombing attack at a police training camp in Libya. On 14 January this year five attackers and two civilians were killed in a series of explosions accompanied by gunfire in central Jakarta. On 20 January this year more than 20 people were killed in a suicide attack at the Bacha Khan University in Pakistan. Regrettably, I could go on to list many more.
These terrible events remind us that as a jurisdiction we cannot be complacent. Following the COAG counter-terrorism review and the Martin Place siege review, in addition to the heightened security environment we currently face, there regrettably remains a clear need to be prepared for the possibility of extremist groups or individuals increasing their reach and scope for action within our own country. We need to be in a position to work cooperatively with other jurisdictions that experience violent dissidence.
It was the London terrorist attacks in July 2005 that led to debate about whether new laws were needed to prevent terrorist incidents. On 27 September 2005 COAG leaders from all state, territory and federal governments agreed that changes were required,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video