Extending Terrorism Laws: Safeguarding WA or Overreach?

In the Legislative Council today, we considered the extension of two critical but extraordinary pieces of legislation: the Terrorism (Extraordinary Powers) Act 2005 and the Terrorism (Preventative Detention) Act 2006. These laws grant Western Australian police some of the most serious powers imaginable, including the ability to detain individuals without charge for up to 14 days. Yet, these powers have rarely, if ever, been used.

A fleeting glimpse of powers unused

This small bill seeks to push forward the sunset clauses on these acts—effectively extending their life until late 2027. The original laws were accompanied by sunset clauses because of the gravity of their provisions: we cannot simply hand over such extraordinary authority without regular re-evaluation. As my colleague Hon Nick Goiran pointed out, the powers have not been actively used except for one covert search warrant years ago that went unexecuted. Yet these laws remain necessary as part of our commitment within a national framework to protect Western Australians from the threat of terrorism.

The fear is real. The national terror threat was recently raised to a "probable" level—indicating that terrorism is a present danger, not a distant possibility. This is not just bureaucratic jargon; it’s a waiting room where delays or gaps in our powers could lead to catastrophic outcomes for families, communities and our shared safety.

Still, this raises troubling questions about the balance between protecting our community and guarding civil liberties. Extraordinary powers require extraordinary accountability. This is not merely legal theory; it affects real lives—the anxiety of indefinite detention without charge, the frustration of opaque reviews, and the profound need for transparent oversight.

Who watches the watchmen?

My reflection as a doctor and former GP is simple: unchecked power can become a sickness in the body politic. The unsettling case where a senior police officer defied calls for prosecution over community harm reminds us that our safeguards are only as strong as the will to enforce them. The ancient question, “quis custodiet ipsos custodes” (who guards the guardians) remains profoundly relevant.

While the legislation before us focuses on terrorism, the wider problem is the gradual onslaught of policing powers that too rarely recede. The Greens’ contribution underscored this: powers frequently expand but seldom shrink, with legal aid for detainees still an unresolved issue decades later. We must ask: how do we avoid slipping from protection to oppression in the name of security?

And then there are the troubling international dimensions. We find ourselves allied with a nation whose actions on the high seas raise serious ethical questions—acts that some might call terrorism, carried out with impunity and without due process. It is a stark moment of political reality: our external partnerships can influence how we define terrorism and how these laws might be enforced or ignored.

If we do not consider who we stand with globally, we risk hypocrisy and the erosion of the justice we aim to uphold here at home.

The road ahead: a cautious but resolute path

The bill itself is straightforward: extend the sunset clauses to allow for proper statutory reviews. I support this extension, recognising the urgency and the need for police to retain their full suite of counterterrorism tools. But I share concerns about the process. One statutory review has been completed but remains unpublished, withheld from Parliament as we debate this extension. The other is underway. Without full transparency on these reviews, how can we form a fully informed judgement about the continued necessity or reform of these laws?

This is a question for all of us who believe in evidence-based, science-driven governance. We need to navigate between the Scylla of real threat and the Charybdis of governmental overreach—and keep the ship of state steady.

These discussions must continue well beyond today’s passage of this bill. There is space for nuanced debate about definitions of terrorism, the protection of peaceful protest, and the ratio between security and freedom. These aren’t abstract issues; they affect the daily lives and freedoms of all Western Australians.

If you find this kind of analysis valuable, I invite you to subscribe to my YouTube channel where I share insights on law, health, and policy as we continue these conversations in accessible ways.

With the extension agreed to for now, it is vital we scrutinise the completed and upcoming reviews when they are tabled and engage the robust debate they deserve. Our commitment to safety must never come at the cost of our fundamental democratic values.

For those interested in the full details and official record, you can read the comprehensive legislative debate and official Hansard at this link. If you share our vision for a balanced and scientifically grounded approach to laws affecting our state and rights, I encourage you to join Legalise Cannabis WA and be part of a community committed to thoughtful, evidence-based reform at https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join.