By Go Hard or Go Home 15 October 05
Stanhope: It is bizarre to think legislation of this significance can be rushed into Parliament without consulting a single Australian.
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says he will not comply with instructions from the Commonwealth insisting he remove draft counter-terrorism legislation from his website.
He posted the documents on his website yesterday, because he says the public has the right to know about how the far-reaching laws will impact on civil liberties of Australian citizens
"As far as I'm concerned, any one of the jurisdictions who's participating in the development of this legislation has a right to consult in the way that they feel appropriate," he said.
"It may be that Philip Ruddock and John Howard don't want to consult on this legislation, they don't want the views of many Australians, they want to rush it through, they want to do it in secrecy, but I don't."
Mr Stanhope says he hopes posting draft counter-terrorism laws on his website will open community debate about the issue.
"This is fundamentally important legislation, this goes to the rights of every Australian and I think it is bizarre in the very extreme to think that legislation of this significance can be rushed into Parliament without consulting a single Australian," he said.
'Indecent haste'
The Law Council of Australia says the Government has acted with indecent haste to try to push through anti-terror laws that will affect each and every Australian.
With the bills set to go before Parliament in a fortnight, the Opposition and minor parties are angry a Senate inquiry will be given just one day to consider their content.
The Law Council's president, John North, has told AM the laws seem to ignore the fundamental right to remain free unless a person is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence.
"It looks as if the Government is going to be able to lock people up in times of fear such as if they're having a heads of government meeting or an Olympic Games and if they think that there's going to be trouble, well they can pull people off the street and hold them under these orders," he said.
Mr North says the suggestion that under the legislation that police will be able to use lethal force when arresting someone is just one of the proposals the Law Council is concerned about.
"It differs in that police under today's law can only use lethal force if they are directly themselves threatened or they have to save someone," he said.
"Under this, there seems to be enough room to manoeuvre and it seems to be directly pointed at the London situation where the person was shot."
Draft copy 'more extreme'
The Australian Democrats and the Greens say the new laws go much further than previously anticipated.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has also raised concerns that the draft copy does not include key provisions that were agreed upon by Prime Minister John Howard and state and territory leaders.
Australian Democrats Leader Lyn Allison says the draft copy of the legislation is more extreme than she expected.
"It's extraordinary, this bill provides a whole lot of extra powers to the police that were previously not contemplated," she said.
Greens Senator Kerry Nettle says the draft copy of the anti-terror legislation proves the need for a longer and more indepth inquiry.
"The state premiers are aware of the need to look over more closely this legislation," she said.
"Agreements that John Howard made to them in their meetings have not been met in the detail of the legislation that we have seen to date, and that's just one more reason why there needs to be proper scrutiny."
The Opposition says Mr Stanhope has performed a community service by posting the details on his website.
Labor's homeland security spokesman Arch Bevis says the website posting shows that what he called the Prime Minister's abuse of the Senate last week was even more serious than originally thought.
"There needs to be a proper inquiry," he said.
"John Howard should take up Labor's offer put on the table in the Senate last Thursday, to ensure that sufficient time is given for these bills to be discussed this year but also to ensure that the Senate has a proper review of the matter.
"There should be a Senate inquiry, it should go for at least a month and it should ensure that all of the people in Australia who have an interest in this can have their say."
Related:
By Just Us 15 Octoberr 05
Natasha Stott Despoja has described Mr Stanhope as the "hero of the hour".
Senator Despoja says there is meant to be a vote on the draft legislation in the week beginning November 7.
But she says the release of the draft document underscores it is something that must not be rushed.
"The Australian Democrats have an amendment before the Senate that will be voted on on the seventh of November and that is to extend any reporting date of a proposed committee into these laws to the 28th of November," she said.
"So the Government has a choice, a one day inquiry or a reporting date of the 28th of November. I hope they'll see sense and support the Democrat amendment."
Labor's homeland security spokesman Arch Bevis says it was inevitable details of the Federal Government's anti-terrorism laws would be leaked.
Mr Bevis says while he hopes to dissuade the Prime Minister from going ahead with that timetable, he is not confident of success.
"Well he's not a man known for changing his mind I have to say, but these are important issues," he said.
"There is no reason for John Howard to behave in this arrogant manner. He's been given very good cooperation by the states and territories.
"We've made clear our willingness in Canberra to ensure the Parliament has sufficient time to discuss them, we don't need these extreme tactics from John Howard."
Comment:Insane
by Jerome 12:24pm Sat Oct 15 '05 comment#60166
Schedule 1 Definition of terrorist organisation etc.
5 Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978
6 1 Paragraph 6(7)(b)
7 Omit ", (c), (d) or (e)".
8 Criminal Code Act 1995
9 2 Subsection 101.2(3) of the Criminal Code
10 Repeal the subsection, substitute:
11 (3) A person commits an offence under this section even if:
12 (a) a terrorist act does not occur; or
13 (b) the training is not connected with preparation for, the
14 engagement of a person in, or assistance in a specific terrorist
15 act; or
16 (c) the training is connected with preparation for, the
17 engagement of a person in, or assistance in more than one
18 terrorist act.
19 3 Subsection 101.4(3) of the Criminal Code
20 Repeal the subsection, substitute:
21 (3) A person commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) even if:
22 (a) a terrorist act does not occur; or
23 (b) the thing is not connected with preparation for, the
24 engagement of a person in, or assistance in a specific terrorist
25 act; or
26 (c) the thing is connected with preparation for, the engagement
27 of a person in, or assistance in more than one terrorist act.
28 4 Subsection 101.5(3) of the Criminal Code
29 Repeal the subsection, substitute:
30 (3) A person commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) even if:
31 (a) a terrorist act does not occur; or
Related:
