Page 1590 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (4.59): Mr Corbell again demonstrates that this jurisdiction or this government will be out of step with the Australian norm. He fails to identify, understand or realise with this temporary legislation that 10 years is temporary. The reason the federal government proposed a 10-year time frame and the reason all the other states have fallen into line with that time frame is that, with the international dynamics surrounding the whole issue of the war against terror and its impact on this country, this is going to be a very long-term affair.
They have quite sensibly assessed that you are going to be looking at a 10-year time frame, of a temporary nature, against a very difficult, complex and long-term struggle. Looking to have a five-year sunset clause with a three-year check and balance means you will be providing other inconsistencies to our police, who have to think about and plan ahead for the way they go about their duties in protecting our community. I commend Mr Stefaniak’s amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (5.01): I move amendment No 16 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1666]. This is my last amendment and it also relates to an extension of the sunset clause. I will pick up where Mr Pratt left off. The earlier amendment, of course, related to a review of the act.
I think this is an important issue. It is not as big as the threshold issue but it is important for the very reason clearly enunciated by Mr Pratt—that 10 years is not a long time in relation to the war on terror. I think it is a realistic period of time in which, hopefully, legislation such as that of the other states and the commonwealth will not be necessary. But because that may not be the case, it may need to be extended.
Looking back at recent history: the episode of the blowing up of the USS Cole in Aden was in about 1998; the bombings of the American embassy in Kenya were some time in the 1990s as well; and September 11, 2001, was nearly five years ago. Ten years, I think, is a much more realistic period than five years when talking about terrorism, so this is an important amendment in that regard. I suppose it would not really matter if the previous amendment went down and you had a review after three years. That would not affect this. I think Mr Pratt made some excellent points there.
As this is my last amendment I will address some general aspects of this legislation. Mr Corbell makes reference to the term “extraordinary temporary powers” and indeed the act itself—it will be an act soon—uses that term. As we have heard already that detention without charge is available in eight or nine ACT acts I think that to use the term “extraordinary” when no-one else has is a bit melodramatic. As much as anything, this is somewhat truncated and emasculated legislation compared with that of the other states, the Northern Territory and the commonwealth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .