Page 1593 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (5.12): The government will not be supporting this particular amendment to amend the sunset clause. There is no doubt that these are extraordinary powers. They are far more significant and far greater in their scope than anything that has ever been contemplated by this Assembly or, indeed, by many other parliaments in Australia. So it is important to stress that they are both extraordinary and temporary, and it is important to build into the legislation a very concrete indicator and mechanism to ensure that they are temporary and are renewed with deliberate intent.
If the Assembly at a future date—in five years time—decides that these powers are still warranted, it will have to make an explicit decision that they are still warranted and continue the existence of the legislation. This is not legislation that we simply want to accept as the norm—legislation which becomes the norm and becomes something that is just on the statute book. That is a dangerous path and not one we accept.
I do not accept Mr Pratt’s argument that this does not allow the police to plan. That is simply a nonsense. The review mechanism as proposed in the government’s bill allows for the review to happen after three years of operation and it must be completed before the end of the fourth year of the bill’s operation. That is one whole year before the sunset clause takes effect. It allows the legislature a whole year to consider the review and decide whether or not to continue the powers. It is not something that will impinge on the day-to-day operation and capacity of the police. I reject that assertion.
In closing, I want to respond quickly on a number of the issues raised by Mr Stefaniak. I again draw members’ attention to the comments I made in closing the in-principle stage, where I referred to comments made by Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court. In response to the issues of legislation around prevention of terrorism the first thing he said was, “Every erosion of liberty must be thoroughly justified.” He went on to say:
Sometimes it is wise to pause … to keep our sense of proportion and to remember our civic traditions as the High Court … did in the Communist Party Case of 1951.
Let us remember that, as a community, we have been faced with these awful threats before. In the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s there was the threat of communism. There was a widespread belief in our society—wrongly, in my view—that there was a significant threat to our institutions and our way of life from communism. A government of the day went as far as trying to ban a political party—the Communist Party of Australia. The High Court at that time said, “No, that goes too far.”
Essentially, this legislation is about our response to threats, perceived and real. I accept that the terrorist threat is a real and very serious one. But that does not mean we should abrogate our responsibility to keep our response proportionate and considered and not have regard for the values which we consider central to a democratic society. That is why the government has adopted the approach it has adopted today.
The government is proud of this legislation. It is the only legislation in the country that has regard, first and foremost, for protecting individual and collective rights and does so in a way that is proportionate, meets the tests of our own Human Rights Act and meets the tests, values and decisions expressed in international law around human rights. This
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .