Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 3 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 824..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
detainee impractical. The development of guidelines required by the exposure draft in relation to preventative detention now includes guidelines to assist in the implementation of the contact provisions. The penalties relating to the failure to provide name and address on request by a police officer have been reduced to bring them closer in line with comparable offences on the ACT statute book and in state terrorism legislation.
The annual reporting requirements have been improved. Oversight agencies will be permitted to question a detainee in relation to concerns the detainee has about a detention order, about a matter related to the application of the detention order or about the conditions of detention. Accessibility to the definition of "torture"relied on by the legislation has been improved and an explanatory note has been inserted referring to the possibility that overseas evidence may be derived from torture.
In making these changes the substance of the government's approach has not significantly altered. The government adopted those recommendations that made minor and procedural improvements, which we are always happy to do, but rejected those recommendations that proposed to change important aspects of the bill. Most notably, the government rejected the recommendation that the preventative detention order regime be extended to young persons over the age of 16 years on the basis that it would reduce the human rights compatibility of the legislation without any demonstrably justifiable reason. The case for extending the legislation to minors has not been made.
The government rejected the recommendation that the requirement that preventative detention orders be the "least restrictive way"of achieving their objective be replaced with a requirement that they "substantially assist"in doing so, on the basis that it would reduce the human rights compatibility of the legislation without any demonstrably justifiable reason. The requirement that an order will "substantially assist"an objective is not sufficiently rigorous. Finally, the recommendation that the ombudsman and human rights commissioner perform the role of public interest monitor in relation to hearings of preventative detention orders was also rejected. The public interest monitor function must be preserved to avoid any potential conflict of interest and to ensure that expert legal representation is brought before the Supreme Court.
Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Bill 2006
Mr Stanhope , pursuant to notice, presented the bill, its explanatory statement and a Human Rights Act compatibility statement.
Title read by Clerk.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra-Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs, and Acting Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Business, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (10.41): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
In 1933 the United States was experiencing the height of the Great Depression. On 4 March that year Franklin D Roosevelt gave his inaugural address. I would like to quote