Skip to Content »

Terrorism Suppression Law

  • November 10th, 2007

I can’t really say “I told you so” because I did not pick up in the Bill the precise idiocies that have so embarrassed the government, but I did warn the government of the pitiful quality in what they passed. I gained the call for seven speeches during the committee stages of that bill. It is unusual for an MP to speak more than a couple of times on a Bill in the Committee stage, though MPs in smaller parties can get more time per member.

 Warnings in other stages included : “I do worry about the poorly defined terms in the Terrorism Suppression Act. We have to remember that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

“Unfortunately this legislation is typical of the sort of law we get from Mr Phil Goff. This is absolutely typical of the stuff that comes out after he has made a vein-popping speech about a mischief or an evil. Then we get technically poorly drafted stuff, without regard for the unintended consequences. In this case, the legislation is open to misuse. This is a “trust us” law. If we look at what the Government is actually doing about countering terrorism, we see that it is a paper change. That is hypocrisy. It takes us, in some areas, in the wrong direction”.

I voted with Keith Locke on some of the clauses, for reasons different from his, because the drafting was so abysmal.



Is it true that the bits in the ACT that are ‘incoherent’ were the bits that the Greens wanted in?

Leave your comments:

* Required fields. Your e-mail address will not be published on this site

You can use the following HTML tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>