Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Since the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001, the Australian parliament has enacted more than 30 laws dealing with terrorism. This legislature has agreed on a bipartisan basis that protecting Australians from the threat of terrorism demands exceptional restrictions on civil liberties and on freedom of speech and of association. Offences and procedures have been established which depart significantly from traditional principles and practices of our criminal law. The Attorney-General has been given power to ‘list’ organisations as involved in terrorism. This means that membership and support of such organisations are criminalised. ASIO can detain people for interrogation. Those suspected of terrorist involvement may be subjected to control orders and preventative detention.

Within the parliament and the community, there has been considerable debate about the necessity for and the desirability of such measures. Parliament has given its imprimatur, though not always unanimously and often with considerable reservation. I and a number of others have expressed concern that aspects of the current regime are draconian. I have also voiced my belief that the system’s severity could be eased without undermining its effectiveness and that such reform could potentially enhance it.

The fact is that a democracy’s response to the threat of terrorism cannot simply be more stringent laws, more police and more intelligence personnel. The point was well made by European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini, when he said:

… our citizens entrust us with the task of protecting them against crime and terrorist attacks; however, at the same, they entrust us with safeguarding their fundamental rights … [the] necessary steps we take to enforce security must always be accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure scrutiny, accountability and transparency.

Mr Frattini’s observation has been widely endorsed, not least by the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland, and I support it. The challenge of protecting security without undermining fundamental rights requires constant vigilance. But the reality is that the machinery of vigilance in Australia is deficient.

When the government proposed sweeping new measures in 2005, I said it was important that the parliament identify a credible mechanism to continuously review the operations of the legislation. I suggested that we consider appointing an independent expert to undertake the task, as the UK had done so since at least 2000. Since then, strong support for having an independent reviewer of terrorism laws has come from, amongst others, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Human Rights Commissioner and the unanimous bipartisan support of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—such soft left-wingers as David Jull and Robert Ray.

When the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security was examining the proposal, a witness from the Attorney-General’s Department assured it that our system of review by parliamentary committees and government agencies—that which existed—was not only adequate but superior to the UK’s approach. I am sure that the committee was flattered, but nonetheless it was not persuaded. The committee observed that reviews of the law had been sporadic and fragmented, with limited mandates, and the result was that critical issues fell outside its terms of reference—for example, the impact of requirements about the nondisclosure of security sensitive information on the conduct of trials. In the committee’s view, an independent reviewer would be able to undertake the necessary ongoing oversight and contribute positively to community confidence, as well as providing the parliament with regular factual reports. This view was not just stated once; it was reiterated.

It is vital that parliament and the executive receive expert advice on an ongoing basis about the effectiveness and impact of the regime of counterterrorism measures that have been put in place. A legislatively provided-for Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws would provide a much-needed additional safeguard for the protection of our security and our rights. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

See this speech in context