Page 1361 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

legislation. Instead, it sets out a range of principles that it asks all states and territories to address.

If Mr Stefaniak were so committed to template or uniform provisions, he would have made sure that his own bill was consistent with the commonwealth legislation. But he has not even done that. So to hear the opposition stand up in this place and say this is not consistent, this is not the same as everywhere else, only highlights the fact that their own bill is not the same as the commonwealth’s legislation—the legislation that they regard as the example. And let us take a few examples.

Under the ACT legislation and under Mr Stefaniak’s proposal, all preventative detention orders, both interim and final, may only be made by the Supreme Court. We welcome the fact that Mr Stefaniak accepts that approach. But that is not the approach of the commonwealth. In the commonwealth, preventative detention orders may be made by a senior police officer within a 24-hour period, and continued preventative detention orders may be made by a retired judge, a serving judge, a federal magistrate or an AAT member. This highlights the inconsistency with Mr Stefaniak’s own legislation. There is no requirement for notice under the commonwealth legislation of the making of a PDO but there is in Mr Stefaniak’s legislation and in the government’s legislation. These are two glaring examples of inconsistency with the commonwealth’s own legislation. I would have thought that would have been of concern to Mr Stefaniak.

There are a number of other issues. I would like to turn to the areas where we believe Mr Stefaniak’s legislation is inadequate and why the government will not support it. First of all, I refer to a range of issues around preventative detention orders. Our legislation requires a statement of reasons to be given to the court; Mr Stefaniak’s does not. Our legislation has an expressed prohibition on the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture; Mr Stefaniak’s does not. Our legislation requires a public interest monitor to represent the public interest at a hearing for a preventative detention order or prohibited contact order, and this will protect a person’s right to a fair trial; Mr Stefaniak’s does not.

Our legislation provides for no facilitation of the questioning of detainees under a preventative detention order and the lapsing of that PDO once the person is released for any form of questioning; Mr Stefaniak’s does not. Mr Stefaniak’s legislation would permit someone to be released before questioning and then returned under a PDO. Our legislation provides support for persons with special needs, including psychiatric needs. Mr Stefaniak’s legislation is silent on that issue. Our legislation ensures that it is reviewed after a five-year period, stressing the temporary nature of it; Mr Stefaniak’s is 10 years. These are all failings on the part of the Liberal Party’s legislation and they are reasons why the government does not support it.

A range of other issues needs to be addressed in the detail stage. I commend the legislation to the Assembly and indicate that the government will not be supporting Mr Stefaniak’s bill.

Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.

Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .