Page 2395 - Week 06 - Thursday, 24 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Given the clarification provided by the attorney in relation to emergency authorisations, perhaps to be made clearer by the Greens’ amendment, I believe the human rights considerations are adequately covered. To this end, Madam Deputy Speaker, it comes down to the ability of the law enforcement agencies to have adequate resources and required flexibility to investigate crimes quickly and effectively. Mr Corbell said as much in his response to the scrutiny committee report No 21:
Proportionality always requires that a balance is struck between the burden placed upon the individuals whose rights are being limited and the interests of the general public in achieving the aim that is being protected.
This is especially important when one considers that the use of surveillance devices is only to be authorised in cases where criminal activity is being investigated that would attract an imprisonment sentence of three years or more. Crimes of this kind are serious. They threaten the human rights of citizens to the safe and peaceful enjoyment of our city. Every available utility must be given to law enforcement agencies to minimise that threat.
This matter is of paramount importance to the Canberra Liberals. The human rights of law-abiding citizens must come before those of suspects in matters of such serious crime. The Canberra Liberals support this bill because it gives the law-abiding citizens of Canberra an extra piece of protection that they expect and it is their right.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.21): The Greens support this bill and support a cool-headed, evidence-based approach to investigating crime. We are on the record as supporting this type of well-thought-out approach to developing legislation. The alternative, which was on the public radar last year, was to rush in and legislate in a simple way that causes more problems than it solves. A key example of this is the dangerous approach of banning participation in a prescribed organisation, more widely known as anti-bikie laws. We are pleased to support this bill today. It steers well away from simplistic solutions such as that and provides the police with the investigative tools they need.
In order to equip our police to perform their duties to the best of their ability, they do need access to surveillance devices. By having these devices, police will be able to accurately investigate crime they believe is occurring or is about to occur. Importantly, this allows for police intervention to stop the planned crime being committed. The stark example, of course, is the threat of a terrorist attack, but information gathered can equally relate to threats to individual personal safety or other serious crime.
As Mrs Dunne has touched on, the ACT is a human rights jurisdiction, and that is something to be proud of. The use of surveillance devices engages the right to privacy, as is guaranteed by section 12 of our Human Rights Act. Human rights are not absolute and do not result in blanket bans on things such as surveillance devices. Rather, their use needs to be justified by outlining the community benefit gained and weighing this against the intrusion on human rights. The Greens accept that the broad benefit gained from investigating crime through surveillance devices does justify this legislation. On that basis, we support the intent of the bill and look forward to supporting it later in the morning.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video