Hon Judi Moylan

ANTI-TERRORISM BILL (NO. 2) 2005 Second Reading

ANTI-TERRORISM BILL (NO. 2) 2005 Second Reading Speech Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (6.29 p.m.)—Given the two attacks in Bali, the attacks in the United States of America, London and Madrid and the aborted plots against Australian interests in Singapore and Australia, it would be highly irresponsible for the Australian government to ignore the risk of a serious attempt by terrorists to attack Australians on home territory. The aim of terror attacks is to invoke general panic. That is exactly what terrorists wish to do. Their hatred of our system of government knows no bounds. These are not random acts but deliberate, premeditated criminal acts. It is sobering to reflect on the almost 100 Australians killed in the two attacks in Bali, not to mention those injured, who will carry the reminder of these cowardly attacks for the rest of their lives. The Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 seeks to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, to widen its scope and give the Australian Federal Police and other government agencies unprecedented powers. The need for such a bill gives no comfort to any Australian, accustomed as we are to living in an environment that is tolerant and multicultural and, comparatively speaking, has few manifestations of real poverty. Like many of my constituents, though, I feel uneasy about the passage of such a bill, but I understand the necessity for the government’s endeavours to balance the safety and security of citizens against some restrictions on our accustomed freedoms. Nevertheless, such a worrying time requires cool heads and a commitment to use only such laws as are absolutely necessary to protect human lives and critical infrastructure. The new legislation requires us to take particular care in how we deal with issues concerning children and minors. I have sought reassurance from the Attorney-General that, in the case of raids on homes of suspects, protocols will be observed to protect innocent children. I was pleased to see something about this—although I only managed to get this off the web just before coming into the chamber—in the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which inquired into the bill. Recommendation 3 sets out some changes with regard to minors and how we treat minors when they are arrested. I am pleased to see those changes. Some of the concerns expressed by the public relate to control orders and preventative detention, restrictions on access to family and legal representation, and revised sedition offences. I acknowledge the work that has been done by the backbench committee in an endeavour to address these issues and to ensure that there is adequate oversight of those agencies with the responsibility to administer the new law. In addition, I again welcome the recommendations of the Senate inquiry, particularly recommendation 27 on sedition. That recommendation is to abolish that section, and a further recommendation is that there be, I think, a Law Council inquiry into that particular provision. The one thing we should not do in dealing with new threats is to allow any retreat from strict adherence to democratic principles, including—and in particular—the rule of law and respect for individual members of our community. Of course, black-letter law will not of itself prevent terrorist attacks on our own soil for, as our security agencies have foreshadowed, it is the quality of intelligence that will allow legislation to be effective in protecting Australians against terrorist attacks. The combination of intelligence and legal mechanisms was successful, I believe, in preventing an attack on the Australian Embassy in Singapore. In seeking to defend our liberties, we are discharging a sacred responsibility to rein in those people whose notions of justice reside only in unrestrained violence and destruction. To suggest, as some have, that this bill is a political stunt is to deny the facts. The 2004-05 ASIO report assessing the risk to domestic interests of a terrorism attack makes sobering reading. We are fortunate to live in a strong democratic polity with checks and balances that include a high level of public scrutiny and accountability. As in the past, if there were to be abuses of this legislation it would soon create a public outcry for legislative change. To defend is to erect barricades. That is what our system of laws and statutes is for, yet those laws and statutes are not immutable. We must be prepared to raise the barricades or lower them as circumstances demand, accepting always that they should never be higher than absolutely necessary. To change the metaphor, democracy is a rich banquet and to remove a morsel and nothing more from the table on sound advice from the kitchen should not be cause for alarm. Certainly, it is peevish, not to say ridiculous, for those opposing to cry havoc as if the tablecloth had been stolen as well as all the silver. It is all too convenient to hurl political slogans and avoid responsibility for tough decisions. In such uncertain times this legislation is necessary. That is not to gainsay that there may yet be need for revision and changes. The fact is that we are part of an open and accountable system, including an active fourth estate that will ensure the public interest is ultimately served. That liberty is not just an individual principle but one which embraces the whole of society and its security was amply expressed by John Stuart Mill in his famous essay, ‘On Liberty’. He said: The principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty or action of any of their number is self-protection. That is the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. If these are thoughtful times for a coalition government, one can well understand—though hardly sympathise—that they are agonising times for a Labor opposition. The sunny uplands of peace, as apprehended by that great democrat, Churchill, are the golden place which we yearn to inhabit—the place where saints and visionaries, eccentrics and even crackpots may preach unmolested on any street corner. But where society lives in ever-present peril, where buildings, bridges and harbours require minute by minute protection, where embassies and Australian tourists are under daily threat and where Australians are wantonly slaughtered, we need to make no apology for raising the barricades. That is precisely what this bill does: it raises the barricades at a time when they need to be raised to protect Australian citizens and Australian interests on Australian soil. This legislation has not been entered into lightly. There have been, as my colleague the member for Barton said, a number of gyrations of this legislation—something in excess of 60 drafts. This has been done in consultation with appropriate state and territory ministers and premiers. That is the correct way to proceed in a matter that, as I said, gives such unprecedented powers to our agencies. It has now been before a Senate committee. That Senate committee, I believe from the quick reading that I have made of its recommendations, has listened to the views of a number of people and has made some very sensible recommendations. I believe applying a five-year sunset clause—shortening it from the proposed 10 years—is sensible with a review. Sometimes we have to erect barriers by way of legislation, but our laws are not immutable and we need to constantly look at the appropriateness of the laws we pass in this place and make the necessary changes. I think calling for a review is an excellent recommendation. One of the key issues of contention has concerned the proposed changes to sedition laws and the committee’s report makes some strong recommendations with regard to that—namely, that this clause be struck from the legislation. In the event that the government is not prepared to strike that from the legislation, the report—if I read this correctly in the short time I had it—recommends a number of changes be made. So in essence I support this bill. I think it is the action of a responsible government. I support it but hope that the government will take into account the sensible recommendations made by the Senate committee