Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Politicians grappling with anti-terror legisl -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

(generated from captions) As New York, Madrid and London have

shown us, the world has changed.

with every terrorist attack, the shown us, the world has changed. And

pressure for our laws to change

intensifies as well. The government

has already outlined a tough new

legislative response, but in some

areas, most notably the plan to

allow up to 14 days preventive

detention, the constitution

State cooperation. Tomorrow, the detention, the constitution requires

State premiers and the Prime

Minister will meet to discuss the

most pressing legal challenge of

time. All concerned except that most pressing legal challenge of our

is a matter of balance. But time. All concerned except that this

consensus still seems a long way

and some clearly find the whole consensus still seems a long way off

more challenging than others. and some clearly find the whole idea

I don't think it's hard at all. I

think what we've proposed does

contain that balance. I don't think

these things are all that difficult.

There's overwhelming support in the

community for stronger

anti-terrorism laws, and the

Australian people want them enacted

and they want the government of

country to work together and to and they want the government of this

produce that outcome. I go to the

conference tomorrow with a view

we do need to change our laws, so conference tomorrow with a view that

that the police have adequate

to deal with terrorism, but we want that the police have adequate powers

to ensure that the proper checks

balances are in place. Suicide to ensure that the proper checks and

bombers threaten everyone's civil

liberties. These are extraordinary

powers, they're not something any

democratic government would want to

do but we have to take to sure the

safety of our sit zeps. We're

to have long periods of detention safety of our sit zeps. We're going

without charge I want to make

certain that our citizen,

Queenslander, have the right of

access to a lawyer, right to appear

before a judge at some point and a

public interest monitor to ensure

their rights are protected. I have

enormous concerns with the proposal

put on the table by the Prime

Minister a couple of weeks ago.

Jon Stanhope might lead the

smallest territory of all but it

seems he has the biggest concerns.

While many of his colleagues seem

more than ready to embrace the

tough new laws, Mr Stanhope says

will be looking for some persuasive tough new laws, Mr Stanhope says he

arguments from the Prime Minister

tomorrow's summit. Essentially the arguments from the Prime Minister at

proposal as we have it, and at this

stage we have no detail is that by

executive fiat or through our

forces we should be able to take executive fiat or through our police

people off the street or out of

their homes, lock them up for 14

days, without granting that person

access to a lawyer, without even

explaining to them the reasons for

their detention, without allowing

them access to their families,

without allowing them access if

they're foreign nationals to their

ps consulate. There are two

the premiers an Chief Ministers ps consulate. There are two problems

in varying degrees with the federal the premiers an Chief Ministers have

proposals. The first is a desire

a sunset clause. The second but proposals. The first is a desire for

perhaps most important concerns the

notion of judicial oversight.

If we are extending the opportunity

to detain people without a

conviction being brought, then we

need safeguards of judicial conviction being brought, then we do

oversight, and it needs to have the

courts oversighting those

arrangements. We need legal

representation. We would like to

a sunset, a sunset of a minimum of representation. We would like to see

10 years with the review capacity

each every three years during that

process. The Prime Minister says a

sunset clause is unnecessary,

because no-one can tell him when

terrorist threat will end. But he because no-one can tell him when the

says judicial safeguards do already

exist. In relation to the control

order, you won't be able to get a

control order without going to a

judge, and there will be judicial

review available in relation to

preventive detention. Now, these

safeguards have always been there.

They're not new safeguards I'm

adding on the eve of the meeting.

They were always there. It was

always the case that we were

matching the expansion of the

with appropriate safeguards. In the matching the expansion of the powers

end most premiers expect the Prime

Minister to drop his opposition to

sunset clause and provided they can Minister to drop his opposition to a

be convinceed there is adequate

judicial overthere will be at least

majority agreement if not consensus.

Clearly Mr Stanhope might take

longer to come round than Steve

Bracks for instance. But the

impression is of leaders falling Bracks for instance. But the overall

over themselves to appear to be the

toughest on terror. Clearly their

focus groups are telling them

what the public wants. But is it? focus groups are telling them that's

How will the rest of us react to

laws that challenge some of our own

long held democratic expect yaithss?

Some Muslim groups in particular

have already expressed their

concerns publicly. Surely be there

will be plenty more of this to come.

Isn't it more likely that the

have suspicions about people with Isn't it more likely that the people

middle eastern appearance? Last

I checked there was still something middle eastern appearance? Last time

called freedom of speech in it

country. I simply say to my fellow

Australians who are Muslims: you

have nothing to fear from these

laws. They are directed to protect

you not at awe. Law abiding Muslims

have as much at stake in these laws

being passed as law abiding

Christians or law abiding atheists

or Jews or Hindus. We're all in

together. Speak of terror related or Jews or Hindus. We're all in this

detention the political focus isn't

all centred on what's happening

here. Judicial oversight is not a

discussion point in Guantanamo Bay,

for instance, but lawyers for David

Hicks have announced they are

attaching their hopes to what might

be called diplomatic oversight.

On a review of David's personal

particulars, we discovered that his

mother was in fact born in the UK.

His lawyers are well aware that

His lawyers are well aware that all nine British citizens hell at

Guantanamo Bay have been freed.

Guantanamo Bay have been freed. It's been a credit to the British

Government it's been prepared to

insist on its citizens being

afforded the right to full and fair

trial. Australia is the only

trial. Australia is the only country in the British Commonwealth and the

Western World where one of its

nationals is facing a military

commission. All other countries

commission. All other countries that have sit sdplens at Guantanamo Bay

have managed to secure their

release. David Hicks' application

for British citizenship could take

months to process. And the Australian Government points out

that unlike David Hicks, none of

that unlike David Hicks, none of the British de-Danes were ever charged

Michael Brissenden there. With a series of bestsellers to his credit, palaeontologist Tim Flannery is probably this country's best-known scientist since the late Professor Julius Sumner Miller. An adviser to the South Australian Government

and a member of the respected Wentworth Group, Tim Flannery is now weighing in to the debate over global warming in a book that promises to be his most controversial yet. Dr Flannery has titled his new work 'The Weather Makers'

and he argues that the human race is damaging the environment so badly

through greenhouse gas emissions that it's become the driving force in climate change. The book paints a desperate picture of a future of rising seas and extreme weather unless we make dramatic changes to the way we live. But already, his critics are suggesting the book is over the top and that the Flannery plan for the future