Page 1337 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
People often ask, “Does it matter if there is a lack of consistency between state and territory jurisdictions?” Maybe in some minor areas of the law it does not matter. But this government, along with previous governments, has made an issue about trying to have consistency—certainly where it suits them—in a wide range of legislation in various areas. We often hear from ministers that this legislation enacts a national scheme; that this legislation was agreed at COAG; that this legislation was agreed at the environment ministers conference; that it is template legislation and we enact it—but not when it gets in the way of your own precious Human Rights Act and your own strange interpretation of that act; and not in an important area like this where national and territory security is fundamentally at risk.
The chief reason for introducing this bill—that is, my bill—and it should be the government’s bill too, is the need for consistency in anti-terrorism measures in Australia. Again at the inquiry we had, the AFP commissioner and his colleagues expressed serious concerns that the government bill would not give the police extended powers “necessary to increase the AFP’s capacity to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond effectively to attacks in a way that is consistent with police in all jurisdictions in Australia”. This bill leaves the ACT less protected than the rest of Australia and is therefore a failure of the duty of care towards the people of the ACT by the Stanhope government. The AFP commissioner stated before the legal affairs committee that terrorism should not be underestimated. I quote:
If ever I have seen people with the intent, motivation and capability to do something catastrophic, it is the terrorists. Let us not forget … that the ACT has been the target of a planned terrorist attack. There is a person … in Western Australia who pleaded guilty to the planned bombing of the Israeli embassy here in Canberra just prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympics. The fact that that person pleaded guilty is something that the committee ought to take note of. Canberra is a target.
We know, further, that terrorist threats are real. To its great credit, the AFP has already apprehended 19 terror suspects under other laws. Canberra is an obvious target. I again quote what the AFP commissioner stated:
The reasons for terrorist attacks are many and varied and there is nothing that will make us immune from them. This is a really important point about why we need consistency in the legislation across Australian jurisdictions, particularly for the ACT; that we don’t by default cause ourselves to be the subject of a terrorist attack because the police don’t have the right powers.
The committee heard that terrorists, like international criminals, do not take note of jurisdictional impediments to their activities; and our own weak Stanhope bill here, that is weak on its very raison d’etre—the power to detain suspected terrorists—would be a real factor, together with the attractiveness of Canberra as a target, both symbolically and functionally.
The Chief Minister’s response to this was typical. He rubbished the idea to the media as if it was a case of Osama bin Laden being some grotty peasant with a grenade or two in his belt living in a cave in the Tora Bora, who would hardly know where Canberra was, never mind know anything about its relatively terrorist-friendly laws. That is unrealistic and untrue. Terrorists have shown themselves to be educated, motivated and with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .