Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise certainly not to oppose the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008being aware of the Main Committee’s non-contentious process—but to raise several concerns that I want to put on the record for consideration by those involved in government and in aviation security at a later date, particularly when they put the various regulations together. Firstly, there is the obvious point regarding the legislation passing through this place without the details of the regulations being attached. In so many ways this legislation, for me, flies or fails—pardon the pun—in regard to the detail of the regulations that should be attached or available as part of this process. The questions are incredibly broad regarding the issue of the use and collection of information and the expanded role that this legislation gives, yet the answer that is provided in any of the resources available to a private member in this place is that the regulations will define that.

It makes it very hard for a local member to support this legislation if we are, once again, having to take government on good faith in the collection of what we can only assume is information for security and intelligence purposes. I would hope that we have learnt some lessons in the last decade in taking government on good faith and on the encroaching paternalism of the state in the role that it sees itself playing in protecting society. I would have hoped that we have learnt the lesson not just from the last 10 years but from the history of man and democratic society that says open democracy and the principles of liberty and freedom are best defended when societies are as transparent and therefore as accountable as can be. Faith in people, rather than faith in governments, is surely the future in protecting communities such as ours. So it makes it very difficult for me to support this legislation when we are being told through the documents that the regulations will tell all and that the legislation should therefore be taken on good faith. I have a fundamental problem with that. I will not oppose the bill today, but I place a marker that hopefully we do not see that again. I do hope—with the good faith of all the 150 members representing the people here—that the regulations, with the powers we are giving to those writing the regulations, are written with the interests of people in mind at the same time as the various security and intelligence interests.

The second point I would like to make flows on from that. It is, I guess, that I hope this chamber has learnt the lesson in regards to the collection of intelligence. I was just sent in a timely way a document which was published in late 2008 by Macquarie University in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism by a friend of mine who is the executive officer of the regional development board on the mid-North Coast. I want to read for the record the concluding three paragraphs from his essay on intelligence and intelligence gathering. They are relevant to the point I just made and should be relevant to the consideration of the drafting of the regulations and to the future direction from government as to how government deals with the vexed questions that are being put before it by the attacks, in what are fundamentally peaceful times of those with religious or cultural barrows to push, I would like to read. the final three paragraphs because I think that they are worthy of reflection. They say:

Since September 11 the threat of terrorism has prompted fundamental changes to national priorities and an unprecedented concentration of authority. “Secret” intelligence has been used by governments as the justification for policies and actions that shift the balance between the rights of the state and the individual, at the same time avoiding intensive public scrutiny of decision-making processes.

It is apparent that the threat of terrorism has engendered a range of significant negative changes in Australian society. Core democratic principles and institutions have been compromised and human and civil rights diminished. National priorities have been transformed, reducing an already inadequate level of funding support for the most disadvantaged in our community (poor/young/sick/aged/indigenous). The relationship between the community and its elected representatives has changed, with the emergence of a new and powerful paternalism under the guise of national leadership in a time of crisis.

…            …            …

Of great concern is the possibility that community anxiety about “foreigners”has been exploited for partisan political purposes to polarise society and to alienate Australian Muslims. Ironically this has the potential to create the conditions that will increase the future prospects of terrorism in Australia. Ignorance and prejudice threaten to damage the fabric of Australia’s multicultural society through the radicalisation of sections of our own community. Should a terrorist incident occur in Australia in the future the inevitable response will fundamentally change the nature of Australian society.

A government committed to maintaining a peaceful, just and humane society will always act to ensure that all Australians, no matter their origin, religion, race or colour, are respected as equals and enjoy fair access to the opportunities that this unique country offers.

I read that into the record to be reflected on when writing the regulations. I do acknowledge that there are privacy laws attached to the collection of private information here, but I think there is a large section of the community that want to see an investment in people and the liberties, freedoms and transparency that come with an open democratic process rather than continued encroachment by increasing government powers and paternalism.

I therefore do not oppose the legislation. It certainly does, in summary, concern me that we are being asked to support legislation before we have seen the who, the what, the where, the why and the how of the regulations and the details in them. I hope that consideration is given to those broader founding principles of an open society rather than the continued encroachment of government control and authority.

See this speech in context