Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now be read a second time.
The Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill 2006 amends the Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Act. The key amendment is the implementation of a national scheme for the issue of preventive detention orders for persons in relation to a terrorist act which has occurred or is likely to occur in the next 14 days, including for the preservation of evidence following a terrorist act. These amendments are designed to give police the tools to effectively prepare for, prevent and respond to a terrorist act or a threat of a terrorist act.
Members would agree that one of the challenges confronted by democratic governments worldwide is that terrorism can only be effectively tackled by the use of extraordinary powers. To this end, there has been a high degree of cooperation between the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory to enact substantially consistent laws. No one can guarantee the Northern Territory will not suffer a terrorist attack or be the target of a terrorist act. Indeed, the Australian government's White Paper on Transnational Terrorism, the Threat to Australia, recognises that world globalisation means Australia is no longer afforded the protection of the so-called sea/air gap. A terrorist attack on Australian soil is possible. If anyone was yet to be convinced of the threat, I remind them that Al Quaida has, over the last four years, issued a number of statements identifying Australia as a target. Osama Bin Laden, in a statement issued on 3 November 2001, made specific reference to Australia's involvement in East Timor.
Madam Speaker, with those prelimary remarks, I turn to the objectives of the bill. Besides making specific amendments to the act, the bill covers two aspects. Firstly, it implements the COAG agreement of 27 September 2005 to introduce preventive detention orders, along with stop, detain and search powers under a special area of declaration issued by the Commissioner of Police. Under this bill, the preventative detention scheme complements the scheme adopted by the Commonwealth in the recent Anti-Terrorism Act (No 2) 2005, and includes provision for the detention of a person for up to 14 days in circumstances where the Commonwealth is unable to legislate for due to constitutional constraints.
The second key aspect expands existing police powers to provide police with the ability to apply to a judge for a covert search warrant in relation to a terrorist act. I will deal with each in turn.
First, in respect to the preventative detention scheme which is provided in Part 2B of the amendment bill. The salient features of the bill include: the provision of the detention of the person; the prevention of contact with specific persons during the period of detention; the monitoring of the person during periods of contact; and applications for revocation or variation of a detention order.
The regime is as follows: an authorised police officer may apply for a preventative detention order to an eligible judge. An eligible judge is a judge who has been declared by the Administrator to be an eligible judge. A declaration cannot be made unless the judge consents in writing to the declaration. An eligible judge has all the protections and immunities as a judge of the Supreme Court has in relation to proceedings in the court. An authorised police officer is a member who is authorised, in writing, to make the application by a senior police officer. A senior police officer is a member holding the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or above. The application must be made in the absence of the person and the public. If the judge makes the order and the person is detained under a preventative detention order, the police officer must make an application for the review of the order in the Supreme Court as soon as practical. The judge must only make a preventative detention order if the judge is satisfied that the person: (a) will engage in a terrorist act; (b) possess a thing which is connected with the planning for, or the engagement of a person, in a terrorist act; or (c) has done an act in preparation or planning of a terrorist act, and the order detaining the person will substantially assist in preventing the terrorist act from occurring. The terrorist act must be expected to occur at some time in the next 14 days.
Alternatively, an order may be made for the detention of a person if a terrorist act has occurred in the last 28 days and it is necessary to detain the person to preserve evidence of, or relating to, the terrorist act.
In the review before the Supreme Court, the detainee is entitled to appear and give evidence; call witnesses; examine and cross-examine witnesses; adduce material; and make submissions. In hearing and determining the review, the court is not bound by the principles or rules governing the admission of evidence such as the rule governing hearsay evidence. The court can confirm, vary or revoke the order. If the order is confirmed it allows police to detain the person for a maximum period of 14 days. This includes any previous periods of detention under the order. The preventative detention order commences when the order is made and ceases at the end of the period of detention. An application for a preventative detention order is unable to be made in relation to a person under 16 years of age.
The authorised police officer who applies for a preventative detention order may also apply for a prohibited contact order. A prohibited contact order prohibits the detainee from contacting a person specified in the prohibited contact order. The detainee or the nominated police officer can apply to the Supreme Court for the preventative detention order to be varied or revoked but only after it has been confirmed. The detainee or the police officer may also apply to have the prohibited contact order varied or revoked. The detainee can request their lawyer to be given a copy of the order and a summary of the grounds relied on for the making of the order. The detainee's lawyer is not entitled to obtain any information which is likely to be prejudicial to national security. The detainee retains any rights they may have to apply to the court for a remedy in relation to a preventative detention order or prohibitive contact order including the remedy in relation to their treatment.
The detainee may contact a family member, employer or other approved person on one occasion for the purpose of letting the person know they are safe and are being detained. The person may also contact an approved lawyer for the purposes of obtaining advice or for arranging for the lawyer to represent the person in the proceedings. All periods of contact will be monitored to ensure the detainee does not commit a disclosure offence. It is an offence for the detainee, a family member, the monitor, lawyer, interpreter or the disclosure recipients to disclose to another person certain information. Severe penalties apply if the person is convicted of a disclosure offence.
Although a detainee is unable to be questioned by police the person may be released from the conditions of the preventative detention order and be otherwise dealt with for a suspected offence under the Police Administration Act or pursuant to a warrant under section 34D of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
A police officer is prohibited from applying for a further preventative detention order for a person in relation to the same terrorist act. The terrorist act ceases to be the same terrorist act if there is a change in the date on which the terrorist act is expected to occur. Any preventative detention order or prohibited contact order that is in force at the end of 10 years from the commencement date of the scheme ceases to be in force on that date. The Commissioner of Police must provide a written annual report to the police minister disclosing, amongst other things, the number of preventative detention orders and prohibited contact orders made during the year, including particulars of the orders. The minister is to table a copy of the reports within seven sitting days of its receipt.
Various approaches to making preventative detention orders have been adopted by the other jurisdictions. Victoria and New South Wales require all applications to be made to the Supreme Court. The West Australian scheme which the Territory proposes, allows for applications to be made to eligible judges, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania empowers a senior police officer to make an order if the order is urgent and it is not practicable for an application to be made in the Supreme Court.
As previously noted, to become an eligible judge, a judge needs to consent to the making of the declaration. Consultation with the judges of the Supreme Court as to what they consider the preferred approach for the conferring of jurisdiction for preventative detention orders and from a practical view point as to whether there are judges who would be prepared to accept appointments as an eligible judge has taken place.
Madam Speaker, I now turn to the second part of the COAG agreement which give police powers to stop, detain and search a person or a vehicle in a special area on the making of a special area of declaration. The special area may be the site of an airport, train station, bus station or ship or ferry terminal or other public area or be a special event where mass gatherings occur. A special area declaration may be made by the commissioner of police with the approval of the police minister if the commissioner is satisfied there is a risk of occurrence of a terrorist act. A special area of declaration may operate for a maximum period of 28 days although it may be extended by a further seven days. The making of a special area of declaration must be notified in the Gazette although if failure to do so does not make the declaration ineffective to any extent.
The powers excisable under a declaration include the requirement for a person to provide a police officer with their name, including proof of identity, date of birth, residential address and their reasons for being in the special area. It is an offence for a person to fail or refuse such a request or give a name that is false in a material particular or give an address which is other than the full or correct address of the person's ordinary place of residence.
A member of the police force may stop, detain and search a person or a vehicle in the special area or a person or vehicle which has just left or is about to enter the special area for the purposes of searching for an item which is evidence of or related to or might be used in or otherwise connected with the preparation for or engagement of a person in a terrorist act. If the member finds an item which he or she reasonably suspects is a terrorism related item or a serious offence related item, the member may seize the item. The owner may make an application for the return of the item. Whether the item is returned or forfeited to the Northern Territory will be determined by a magistrate. As soon as practicable, after a special area declaration ceases to operate, the Commissioner of Police must provide the Attorney-General with a written report outlining the terms of the powers exercised and any results obtained under the declaration. The Attorney-General must table the report in Parliament within seven sitting days after receiving the report.
Madam Speaker, the next key amendment to the bill allows for the making of a covert search warrant. The objective of making a covert search warrant is to give police the power to covertly enter and search a place if an authorised police officer suspects or believes on reasonable grounds a terrorist act has been, is being or is about to be committed and the warrants will substantially assist in responding to or preventing the terrorist act.
In determining an application the judge must consider a range of factors and must, if necessary, impose strict terms in the execution of the warrant. For instance the warrant may include the power of re-entry to the premise in specific circumstances. Built in safeguards exist to account for the powers being exercised, such as requiring the authorised police officer to provide a written report to the issuing judge regarding the execution of the warrant. In addition an annual report must be provided to the police minister for tabling in Parliament.
Madam Speaker, the remainder of the amendments to the act have either arisen from a review of the act or identified during anti-terrorism exercises held during the past two years. These amendments are intended to provide certainty and clarity as to the authorised use of the special powers. The principal amendments removes the limitation upon the giving of an authorisation by the Commissioner of Police by removing the term 'terrorist act has occurred or is imminent' and replace it with 'a terrorist act has occurred or is likely to occur in the near future'. The New South Wales model, which is the model adopted by the Northern Territory, made similar changes to its legislation recently.
Another crucial amendment expands the power to enter and search the premises of a target person, even though the target person is not on the premises. As it currently exists, a member may only enter and search a target person's premises if the target person is in or on the premises.
The final amendment concerns the requirement for a full review of the bill within five years of its commencement. This will ensure that the bill continues to meet the necessary balance between public interest and individual rights and freedoms.
Madam Speaker, complacency not only gives terrorists an opportunity to develop and target our national interests, it also provides fertile breeding grounds for home-grown terrorist activity. If this were to occur, our fundamental lifestyle, our core values, and our freedoms would be at risk, as was so graphically demonstrated in the London bombings. We cannot let this happen. The changing focus of terrorism means we need to consider fresh ways to protect Territorians against ideological acts of violence. This may mean that ordinary Territorians will, when extraordinary events occur, temporarily need to sacrifice some fundamental freedoms. Existing police counter-terrorism powers, including those proposed under this bill, will equip police with special preventative and investigative tools for use in extraordinary events. In other words, these tools are unable to be used as part of day-to-day general policing duties. Their use will be strictly controlled and, as already mentioned, are designed to strike the necessary balance between fundamental freedoms and the need for law enforcements to counter terrorism.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and also table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 29 March 2006.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, to the disappointment of the Chief Minister, I will be brief. Minister, this bill is supported. There is something in all of us, I believe, that has a natural knee-jerk reaction when we see legislation of the kind that has been described by others as draconian, introduced in any parliament in this country. I recallthat, when the Commonwealth and other states and territories agreed to this sort of legislation, that you were all at one, and then, of course, the very complex Jon Stanhope, Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, did a bit of positioning, some might say shafting, of his Labor colleagues and, indeed, the federal government, because it appears as though either he or his staff thought that perhaps he should not have agreed to what everyone agreed to in the first instance.
However, it seems as though Jon Stanhope has recovered, although I note with interest the article in the Weekend Australian about Jon Stanhope's government which is erratic. I think that is a reasonably polite way of describing his government.
In any event, as a lawyer, I have some concerns with some of the far reaching provisions found in this bill. However, as a politician and community representative, I understand well why it is this legislation comes before us today.
Minister, this could potentially be a difficult piece of legislation to track. We are hopeful, of course, that you will never have to call upon it, as will members of the police force, but if it is called upon I would lay a bet there would be all sorts of High Court challenges and so on and you, minister, as a politician, would expect that to be the case.
I note law societies around the country, with only one or two exceptions, have had very little to say about this sort of legislation. That is interesting. I do not know why they have been silent, because so much of not only this legislation but other types of legislation in other jurisdictions would, I think, present various difficulties to members of the legal profession.
However, that is the way of the world and it is with some understandable reluctance but with a philosophical view of the world today that the opposition lends its support to the bill. We wish you well and I am sure you will join with us and all Territorians and hope like hell that you never have to use it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of the bill. I understand we live in times which are different from several years ago when the idea of terrorism affecting the shores of Australia would probably have been very remote and something we would not have believed could happen. But as has been seen, just because you have some sea between you and another country, it does not necessarily mean it will not happen. The London bombing certainly showed there is that possibility.
As you read through the act, there are many safeguards to make sure these emergency powers are not abused, although I do have queries about a couple of issues which I would like to raise.
In relation to preventative detention order, it is good that immediately someone is taken into custody that person has to be told they have the right of review by the court. That is good. However, there is a section in here which talks about detention in prison. My concern is that a person has not actually been charged; they have been brought into detention. If they are to be taken to prison under this act, I have two concerns. One is that the remand centre in Darwin Prison is totally inadequate and we need to look at the facilities we have there. Two, because there is no separation of the type of prisoners in the remand centre and you have just detained a terrorist – at least you think that person could be capable of doing a terrorist act – where would you put them in prison? Would you put them in the main part of the prison although they have not been charged with an offence? Would you put them in the remand area? Is that a suitable area if you have doubts about whether they are a terrorist? Remand people are there waiting to go court. I would be interested to know where you would put people if they were to be put in prison. Perhaps you would just keep them in the lock-up at police headquarters? I am not sure, but there is a clause in there enabling the person who is to be detained to be put in prison.
I had a quick look at some parts of Hansard which refer to this bill on 29 April 2003, when the Terrorism (Northern Territory) Request Bill first came through parliament. I did make a note at that time whether there were any safeguards, for instance as to what was considered to be a possible terrorist act. I wondered at that time, and I am not sure whether I ever got an answer for it, whether it could it be that these powers could be used against industrial action? What I mean by that is there are times when industrial action is political. Could a strike or some low level civil disobedience be seen as possibly being a terrorist act? In other words could someone do something using civil disobedience which the police might see as having the potential under this act to be regarded as a terrorist act? If so, what safe guards are in the act to make sure that could not occur. I raised this at that time in parliament. I ask the minister is that possibility still within the framework of this new bill.
The other area was the declaration of the special area. Now I notice when you have a preventative detention order you can get a review by the court but if the commissioner decides to declare a railway station, an airport or a bus depot a special area, the only person that he has to get approval from is the minister which is different from when someone has a preventative detention order, where there is a review by the Supreme Court. I do not know if there was any thought given to whether the courts would be involved in the declaration of a special area. It would seem to me to be a far reaching part of the legislation. I am not saying it is not needed but when I look at the preventative detention order there does not seem to be the same checks and balances that the commissioner has if he issues a declaration of a special area. Now that could have widespread repercussions for something that may not have been intended. If the people for instance who are at the special event feel that they are being unduly 'picked on' if you want to put in those words, where do they go for an appeal against their special event being declared a special area declaration.
I just have those concerns. I understand why we have a prohibitive contact order and I think that is reasonable and why you need covert search warrants. Overall, minister, I am supportive of the bill but there are a couple areas there that need some explanation. I will be interested to hear what you have to say in response.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support for this legislation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I hope this legislation is never used in the Northern Territory but it is in response to changing global environments. The first responsibility of any government is the protection of its citizens and that is the outcome of the COAG Agreement. It gives me no great pleasure as minister to have to introduce this type of legislation into the parliament.
I would just like to go to some history and background before addressing the specific points raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson as to the environment in which this legislation is being introduced and why it needs to be introduced. I suppose terrorism in many forms has been a global phenomenon or activity for want of a better word for many years. In essence, this particular legislation is borne from the London bombings on 7 July 2005 where 52 lives were lost. All of us could probably remember when we started to hear and see that footage as it came through. It was an attack that was extraordinarily cowardly in the discriminatory way in which those 52 innocent people lost their lives. COAG announced this package of measures on 27 September. Just four months later, the Prime Minister, Premiers, and Chief Ministers moved very swiftly.
You can do all sorts of research on the Internet these days; it is a fabulous research tool. Preparing for my concluding comments in regard to this legislation, I came across a BBC News page dated Thursday, 28 July 2005, which shows, if people remember, there was a car that had a number of explosive devices in it that was detained in a town called Luton that did not actually get to their intended targets. There is a photo here of a bomb packed with nails which was intended to be detonated on the public transport system in London. It sends shivers down your spine to think that there are people out there with the motive not only to kill, but to maim as many people as possible in a totally indiscriminate manner.
That is the type of people you are dealing with; people who are, to my mind, totally irrational in regards to what they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to achieve it. I suppose that is a very graphic picture which shows why we need to introduce such legislation to give the police the powers, when they do receive intelligence that this type of activity may be being planned and proposed, as opposed as to after the event when the act has occurred, to detain people and launch a very thorough investigation. The outcome of not acting quickly on intelligence is, unfortunately and tragically, many hundreds and thousands of people around the world being indiscriminately killed by those types of devices. I suppose that is the environment in which this legislation is framed.
Subsequent to the bombings on 7 July, there was a follow-up attempt in London on 21 July. Five people were charged with conspiring to attack the London transport network. Again, you can get details of those charges. The tragedy of all of this in the UK is that most people who have been charged with these offences are people who are actually born in the UK - people who are born citizens of that country taking up terrorist actions against innocent people.
That is the environment. Of course, in the Northern Territory, we have our own direct experience as a result of the Bali bombings in October 2002. Tragically, 202 innocent people lost their lives; 88 of those Australian citizens. We will all remember where we were when we heard that news coming through. I had the opportunity, as Asian Relations and Trade Minister, fairly soon after those bombings, to visit the site and lay a wreath there on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. It was a pretty traumatic experience to be taken around that site by the commanding officer of the AFP, who was leading the investigation with the Indonesian authorities, to have a very chilling recitation of exactly what did happen at Kuta that night, and how the bombs were arranged to cause maximum death and injury to the maximum number of people - a very cold, calculated and brutal attack that saw 202 innocent people losing their lives.
Again, the way people in Darwin, in particular, responded is certainly evidence that we were directly affected by a significant terrorism event not too far from our shores in Darwin. We all know and pay tribute to the heroic work of many people at Royal Darwin Hospital, our emergency services personnel and volunteers who assisted in the response to that atrocity in October 2002. That was then followed up again, almost exactly three years to the day on 2 October 2005, when there were further bombings in Bali, which saw 23 people killed, four of those Australians. Again, innocent Australians abroad killed by terrorist offences, and for all of those people, the 88 who were slain in 2002 and the four in 2005, that is 92 Australians who have lost their lives to terrorism offences, and many hundreds and thousands of people across Australia directly affected who have lost loved ones. This is the global environment that we are in.
There are all sorts of reports available for members, particularly commissioned by security services and the Commonwealth government. Certainly, there is no doubt that mainland Australia, potentially, is a terrorist target. Again, this is a public document. There is no information here that is confidential, however, if members want to go to the latest ASIO Annual Report dated 2003-04, there is quite a detailed reference in regards to potential terrorism activity on Australian soil. In fact, we have had one Australian, a fellow by the name of Jack Roche, who was arrested on 18 November 2002 by the AFP on charges of conspiracy to commit offences under the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act that began in Perth on 17 May 2004. The prosecution presented evidence alleging that, in 2000, Roche had undertaken reconnaissance of the Israeli Embassy in Canberra and Consulate in Sydney at the direction of al-Qaeda for a proposed terrorist attack. On the tenth day of the trial, Roche pleaded guilty to the charges on 1 June 2004 and was sentenced to nine years in prison with a four year non-parole period, a very real example of the type of activity that Australia is exposed to.
Again, there is a number of people mentioned, some of them more high profile, such as Willie Brigette. On 22 September 2003, the French Security Service advised that French national, Willie Brigette had participated in military training in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan, and they believed he travelled to Australia in May 2003. It is clear that Brigette travelled to Australia intending to do harm. As a result of the investigations, two other individuals were arrested by the AFP and charged under anti-terrorism legislation. It also goes on to say that, since 11 September 2001, a total of 20, including six in 2003-04, Australian people have been assessed or suspected of receiving or facilitating terrorism training overseas and have had their Australian passports cancelled or denied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
We have seen a number of arrests in the not too distant past in Sydney and Melbourne, and there is no doubt, tragically, Madam Speaker, that Australia does face a threat. This legislation is being implemented across Australia, as I have said, again, to give the police the powers that, on receipt of intelligence, that they can take people in and question them, and try to head off any potential plan to effect a terrorism attack on mainland Australia. I am certainly comfortable, as Police minister and a minister of the government, and certainly this has been discussed in Cabinet in the usual ways, that there are the appropriate checks and balances throughout this legislation.
Turning to the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, when she stated that she did have some concerns, and hypothesised why the law societies across Australia have remained silent on this legislation that is being implemented. They have remained silent, and I defer to knowledge of the technical aspects of the law to the Leader of the Opposition, because the checks and balances are in this legislation. There is a requirement to report to this parliament on an annual basis as to whether the legislation has been used in the Northern Territory, and there is to be a comprehensive review as to the requirements and the need to have this legislation in place across Australia within five years.
In regard to the preventative detention orders which allow police to question people for up to 14 days without charge, they can only be granted once police have satisfied an eligible judge. And to correct the member for Nelson, if the eligible judge does grant the preventative detention order, there is a requirement that that order has to be confirmed by the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity. It is not giving powers to police directly to take people off the streets for up to 14 days without confirmation through the court system.
The Leader of the Opposition said – and I was a bit surprised – that the legislation was knee-jerk and draconian. It is not knee-jerk and draconian. It is very responsible legislation which has been put in place in extraordinary circumstances, with checks and balances throughout the legislation. It is certainly not knee-jerk and draconian to my mind.
Member for Nelson, I have dealt with the detention order. The issue about someone being apprehended and taken to the prison – we are talking about people who are being investigated, or suspected, or are contributing too, or planning a potential terrorist attack. They would be held in isolation in a high-security setting through our corrections systems, and if there were a number of people detained as a result of a police investigation and we did not have the capacity, then some of those people would be transferred and held interstate. That would be an issue which would be worked out with corrections as the need arose.
The member for Nelson made comment about whether this could legislation could be used against striking workers. Can I say from the Labor government no, it will not and there is not capacity for it to be used against Australians who are exercising their legal right to take industrial action. In fact, the act specifically precludes that and I will read from it:
Advocacy falls within this subsection if it is advocacy protest, dissent or industrial action. It is not intended to cause serious harm, that is, physical harm to a person, to cause a person's death, to endanger a person's life's life other than the life of the person taking action, or to create a serious risk to public health or public safety.
So specifically, the legislation precludes it being used in order quell advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. That is covered, and there is no way we would introduce such legislation.
The member also asked about the capacity to declare special areas for police to be able to close off, and why that was the power of myself as Police Minister as opposed to through the courts. Again, this issue has been worked through. It gives the police powers on application to myself, that in the event a public place, and we are talking about in the Territory context here, airports in the Territory, the train station, major sporting venues, where large numbers of people are going to be gathered for a particular event and police have intelligence immediately to hand that they suspect an act may occur, then there really is no time to go through a court or a legal process. There is a requirement for a review and because a special place has been declared as an area, there is no direct impact on the liberties of an individual. So it really does give the police the powers, under extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, to secure an area from the public where they believe an event may be being planned as a result of intelligence received.
I hope, like the Leader of the Opposition and like every member of this House, that our Territory police force never has to use such legislation, but we do live in times where such legislation is appropriate and is certainly not knee jerk and draconian.
Just to remind people, before I conclude, that yesterday an Indonesian anti-terror unit found a backpack filled with explosives similar to those used in last year's Bali bombings that killed 20 people. They found a bomb like those used in the Bali blast. They believe on intelligence, and I do know that federal police and security services work very closely with Indonesian authorities, that some of the people apprehended are certainly linked to groups responsible for the previous Bali attacks. So evidence just yesterday, again in Indonesia there are people there plotting and planning similar events that occurred in Bali in 2002 and 2005, so we will be vigilant.
I have every confidence in our police force to use these powers appropriately but I can reassure Territorians the checks and balances are through this. We do live in pretty extraordinary times in regards to the terrorism threat. I have to provide a report to parliament on an annual basis as to the use of these powers and a comprehensive review within five years. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time. |
|
Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches