❓ The Minister defends the government's counter-terrorism laws, criticising the opposition's amendments, particularly regarding clause 20, arguing they undermine police operational effectiveness and public safety. The Minister accuses the opposition of hypocrisy and obstruction.
AnsweredQoN 747Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the minister explain to the house how opposition amendments to the Gallop government’s counter-terrorism laws will make it operationally unworkable for front-line police to do their job, and will leave the community at risk? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Southern River for the question, and for his support of the counter-terrorism legislation. By opposing clause 20, the opposition fails to understand the significance of that clause in ensuring the safety of the Western Australian community. Terrorism is an extraordinary emergency situation. Governments around Australia, including the federal Liberal government, are putting in place specific and extraordinary powers to pre-empt terrorist attacks. The provisions of clause 20 mean the Commissioner of Police can act immediately when there is a terrorist incident. That can occur only when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent or has just occurred. That is what the commissioner’s warrant is all about. Members opposite are saying that that warrant should be open to challenge. The title of clause 20 is “Warrant not open to challenge”. They would have the commissioner take immediate action and then be distracted by a challenge to the warrant. It is a nonsense. We are talking about life and death situations. We are talking about people opposite risking people’s lives and putting them in peril. Guess what members opposite in this house said about clause 20? Consideration of clause 20 took about one second in this place. It was of no interest to those opposite. Many of them spoke in favour of the bill and its passing quickly. The members for Hillarys, South Perth and Vasse all said that they hoped the bill would pass quickly through the Parliament. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition used to be so interested in the police position that he utilised information from the police briefing in his lead question in the Parliament one day. He thought it was pretty important back then. He wanted to know if there were any gaps in the legislation - Mr M.J. Birney : I did not say that at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Southern River for the question, and for his support of the counter-terrorism legislation. By opposing clause 20, the opposition fails to understand the significance of that clause in ensuring the safety of the Western Australian community. Terrorism is an extraordinary emergency situation. Governments around Australia, including the federal Liberal government, are putting in place specific and extraordinary powers to pre-empt terrorist attacks. The provisions of clause 20 mean the Commissioner of Police can act immediately when there is a terrorist incident. That can occur only when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent or has just occurred. That is what the commissioner’s warrant is all about. Members opposite are saying that that warrant should be open to challenge. The title of clause 20 is “Warrant not open to challenge”. They would have the commissioner take immediate action and then be distracted by a challenge to the warrant. It is a nonsense. We are talking about life and death situations. We are talking about people opposite risking people’s lives and putting them in peril. Guess what members opposite in this house said about clause 20? Consideration of clause 20 took about one second in this place. It was of no interest to those opposite. Many of them spoke in favour of the bill and its passing quickly. The members for Hillarys, South Perth and Vasse all said that they hoped the bill would pass quickly through the Parliament. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition used to be so interested in the police position that he utilised information from the police briefing in his lead question in the Parliament one day. He thought it was pretty important back then. He wanted to know if there were any gaps in the legislation - Mr M.J. Birney : I did not say that at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
I thank the member for Southern River for the question, and for his support of the counter-terrorism legislation. By opposing clause 20, the opposition fails to understand the significance of that clause in ensuring the safety of the Western Australian community. Terrorism is an extraordinary emergency situation. Governments around Australia, including the federal Liberal government, are putting in place specific and extraordinary powers to pre-empt terrorist attacks. The provisions of clause 20 mean the Commissioner of Police can act immediately when there is a terrorist incident. That can occur only when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent or has just occurred. That is what the commissioner’s warrant is all about. Members opposite are saying that that warrant should be open to challenge. The title of clause 20 is “Warrant not open to challenge”. They would have the commissioner take immediate action and then be distracted by a challenge to the warrant. It is a nonsense. We are talking about life and death situations. We are talking about people opposite risking people’s lives and putting them in peril. Guess what members opposite in this house said about clause 20? Consideration of clause 20 took about one second in this place. It was of no interest to those opposite. Many of them spoke in favour of the bill and its passing quickly. The members for Hillarys, South Perth and Vasse all said that they hoped the bill would pass quickly through the Parliament. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition used to be so interested in the police position that he utilised information from the police briefing in his lead question in the Parliament one day. He thought it was pretty important back then. He wanted to know if there were any gaps in the legislation - Mr M.J. Birney : I did not say that at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mr M.J. Birney : I did not say that at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: I thank the member for Southern River for the question, and for his support of the counter-terrorism legislation. By opposing clause 20, the opposition fails to understand the significance of that clause in ensuring the safety of the Western Australian community. Terrorism is an extraordinary emergency situation. Governments around Australia, including the federal Liberal government, are putting in place specific and extraordinary powers to pre-empt terrorist attacks. The provisions of clause 20 mean the Commissioner of Police can act immediately when there is a terrorist incident. That can occur only when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent or has just occurred. That is what the commissioner’s warrant is all about. Members opposite are saying that that warrant should be open to challenge. The title of clause 20 is “Warrant not open to challenge”. They would have the commissioner take immediate action and then be distracted by a challenge to the warrant. It is a nonsense. We are talking about life and death situations. We are talking about people opposite risking people’s lives and putting them in peril. Guess what members opposite in this house said about clause 20? Consideration of clause 20 took about one second in this place. It was of no interest to those opposite. Many of them spoke in favour of the bill and its passing quickly. The members for Hillarys, South Perth and Vasse all said that they hoped the bill would pass quickly through the Parliament. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition used to be so interested in the police position that he utilised information from the police briefing in his lead question in the Parliament one day. He thought it was pretty important back then. He wanted to know if there were any gaps in the legislation - Mr M.J. Birney : I did not say that at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
I thank the member for Southern River for the question, and for his support of the counter-terrorism legislation. By opposing clause 20, the opposition fails to understand the significance of that clause in ensuring the safety of the Western Australian community. Terrorism is an extraordinary emergency situation. Governments around Australia, including the federal Liberal government, are putting in place specific and extraordinary powers to pre-empt terrorist attacks. The provisions of clause 20 mean the Commissioner of Police can act immediately when there is a terrorist incident. That can occur only when he has reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent or has just occurred. That is what the commissioner’s warrant is all about. Members opposite are saying that that warrant should be open to challenge. The title of clause 20 is “Warrant not open to challenge”. They would have the commissioner take immediate action and then be distracted by a challenge to the warrant. It is a nonsense. We are talking about life and death situations. We are talking about people opposite risking people’s lives and putting them in peril. Guess what members opposite in this house said about clause 20? Consideration of clause 20 took about one second in this place. It was of no interest to those opposite. Many of them spoke in favour of the bill and its passing quickly. The members for Hillarys, South Perth and Vasse all said that they hoped the bill would pass quickly through the Parliament. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition used to be so interested in the police position that he utilised information from the police briefing in his lead question in the Parliament one day. He thought it was pretty important back then. He wanted to know if there were any gaps in the legislation - Mr M.J. Birney : I did not say that at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mr M.J. Birney : I did not say that at all. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Here we go. He said there were gaps and that it was important to cover those gaps. Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mr M.J. Birney : I said the assistant commissioner thought that was the case. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : He asked - . . . will the minister advise the house which gaps in the fight against terrorism Assistant Commissioner Caporn was referring to? He is referring to only one gap now; that is the gap created in the bill by the people sitting opposite. This is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was interjecting and being hairy-chested in this house - He’s the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism. He’s the bloke who deals with it all day long. The bloke who deals with it all day long says that if clause 20 is removed, about half the bill will have been rendered ineffectual. It means that the commissioner will be impeded in acting immediately to deal with a terrorist situation. The member for Hillarys challenged me in this house and asked me whether I would ensure that my colleagues in the upper house would give it priority. I said, “Sure, my colleagues in the upper house will give it priority.” However, the member could not speak for his own members, because they have given the legislation no priority at all. They are filibustering and wasting time. They have knocked off one of the most important clauses in the bill. The governments of New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia have no problem with this clause. Those governments have no issue with their police commissioner having this power. Members should not forget that it is not an unfettered power. This power must have the approval of a Supreme Court judge within 24 hours. All the provisions under the Corruption and Crime Commission Act will apply. A range of other safeguards satisfied the Leader of the Opposition in this house, the opposition spokesperson on justice and all the members who spoke during the debate. The bill gets to the upper house and suddenly the Leader of the Opposition is impotent to do anything about it. He is not a leader. He is not a leader’s bootlace. If he showed some leadership, he would bring his members in the other place to order. It is not a complex clause. It is a three-line clause. It is a simple decision: should the commissioner’s warrant be able to be challenged or not? We are talking only about the first 24-hour period, because it must go before a Supreme Court judge within the first 24 hours. That is the opportunity for the judicial process. Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mr T.R. Buswell interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS : Members should picture this: the police commissioner has information that there is a bomb or explosives or that a chemical or biological terrorist incident is about to happen at the Perth railway station, so he uses the commissioner’s warrant to declare defined areas in which to search people. There is no power of detention and there are no issues with the Constitution. The police commissioner’s warrant merely defines an area and it goes ahead forthwith. Members opposite say that it should be able to be challenged. The Leader of the Opposition is weak and gutless. He should draw his members in the upper house into line, because if he fails to act on this matter, he will have failed the community of Western Australia and put their lives at risk. Anyone would think that he had not seen on television the arrests in Victoria and New South Wales and the real threat that exists in our country, while he sits by and watches his members in the upper house waste time and defeat clauses.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.