Page 3721 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
blow up a train. I know there are issues of civil liberties and, despite the characterisation that you opposite would give, I do believe that civil liberties are an important consideration. But the fact of the matter is that in times of crises and in times of events such as this we do have to forgo some of our liberties in the interests of the national good. We have seen it in war situations, declared war, and we are seeing it in an undeclared war situation whereby the Western communities are constantly being targeted.
Yesterday, flying back to Australia, I sat next to a leading Israeli cleric. He got off the plane in Bangkok and, going through the security point, he was asked to remove his headgear. He said, “How pleased I am that they take it so seriously, that they do not leave things to chance. In my country we have now to put guards on buses and we have to put guards in kindergartens because the threat of terrorism is so great.” He said, “You should tell your Chief Minister that he needs to appreciate that we need to put precautions like this in place to protect people.” I cited the example of the Chief Minister’s mixed views and ambivalent views on these issues. That was the response of one who is living with them on a day-to-day basis.
The commonwealth government have consulted widely in relation to this matter. They have consulted police and intelligence officials and they have consulted our Chief Minister. It seems to me that, despite the declared statements of clarity of position, we are in fact getting ambiguous messages and the people of Australia are hearing an ambiguous message about the ACT.
Yesterday, I was embarrassed as a Canberran when I stood at Canberra airport and heard people at the baggage carousel joking about the ACT’s odd position on this issue. Mainstream Australia realises that there are times when governments have to operate on a confidential basis. People have to operate on a confidential basis. But, if you are dealing with the ACT government, expect to read about material anywhere.
Mr Stanhope’s colleagues in the states and the other territory have been critical of him. What did John Howard say when he was asked in an interview whether these reservations and concerns had been raised before the Chief Minister went public? He said, “No, not one of them has been in touch with me, not one.” There was not the courtesy of saying to the Prime Minister, “Look, I can’t cope with this, I’m sending it to back to you” or “Look, I’ve got to take this position because I’m passionate about my local legislation.” No, just spring it out there, throw it out as a hand grenade. Of course, the problem then is that you run into a situation where the ACT itself is put in some degree of jeopardy because of the reticence there will be in the future to share that level of confidence, especially in situations where there is no legal requirement.
The Chief Minister made light of the fact that censure motions have been brought forward in the past. I think it is probably more appropriate that he think about why censure motions are brought forward. I do not think it is a frivolous matter. He made light of the whole thing. We are dealing with one of the most serious issues affecting our community. It threatens our way of life. What threatens our way of life is the terrorism, not the issue of whether some legalistic argument might apply in relation to a person who is detained.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .