Page 4932 - Week 15 - Thursday, 15 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
make a choice between human rights and national security. What we must aim for is described by the Canadian Attorney-General as “human security legislation” or legislation that protects both national security and human rights.
While the anti-terrorism laws that eventually passed the federal parliament this month were a vast improvement on the early draft presented to the premiers and chief ministers, they still needlessly circumscribe the rights of Australians and lack necessary safeguards. It was pleasing and significant to see the bipartisan approach of the Senate committee in its report on the commonwealth legislation. The recommendations of that committee would have gone a long way to addressing the human rights concerns in relation to control orders and preventative detention. It is most disappointing that the commonwealth chose not to implement many of these sensible recommendations.
I remain convinced that with more time and greater goodwill all the outstanding human rights issues associated with the commonwealth legislation could have been resolved so that both the spirit and letter of the COAG agreement could have been preserved and we could have produced true “human security legislation”. I think it is a matter of great regret that this was not done.
However, the ACT government will honour the commitment I gave to enact laws to protect national security and human rights—laws that comply with Australia’s international obligations under the ICCPR which, of course, are enshrined in the law of the ACT in the Human Rights Act. The exposure draft of the Terrorism (Extraordinary Temporary Powers) Bill shows that it is possible to fully integrate a respect for human rights with tough and effective counter-terrorism measures.
Just as I commissioned expert and independent advice in relation to the commonwealth’s draft, I have taken the step of seeking independent advice as to whether the draft I present to the people of the ACT is compatible with the Human Rights Act. I felt it was necessary in this case to table the bill as an exposure draft to ensure that the community had adequate time to consider and assess the draft and to ensure that the government is on the right track.
Mr Speaker, the exposure draft has been developed in light of various legal opinions on human rights and constitutional issues. These include the opinion of the solicitors-general, assisted by Mr Stephen Gageler SC, the advice of the Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs, and professors Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, and opinions from Lex Lazry QC and Kate Eastman specifically in relation to the ACT Human Rights Act.
The provisions in the exposure draft that relate to preventative detention have been modelled on the parts of the state bills that are considered the best in terms of human rights compatibility, constitutionality and adherence to established principles of justice. Additional safeguards, including some contained in the legislation of the other states, have also been incorporated in the exposure draft to ensure that the ACT has the best and most human rights compatible legislation. Making the bill compatible with Australia’s international human rights obligations has not altered the effectiveness of the law or limited its reach. It remains consistent with the COAG agreement.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .