Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

I listened with great interest to the statement by the Attorney-General. The opposition shares the government’s acknowledgement that its highest responsibility is to protect the safety and security of Australian citizens. We also share the commitment to ensuring that the focus of our national security and counterterrorism laws remains the prevention of any attack. It was the coalition that took the hard decisions to put these laws in place. We have been very fortunate in that no terrorist attack has been successfully mounted in Australia, but this is a result of vigilance rather than any evidence of abatement of the threat.

As the Leader of the Opposition said in his condolence motion speech in this place this week, the gruesome events in Jakarta on the morning of 17 July were a wake-up call for any who had dared to hope or imagine that the threat of global terrorism was on the wane. I would like to quote briefly from the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks, which illustrate the importance of the task we face:

The appalling agenda of the extremists is of course to sabotage that sense of comity and cooperation in our region, in our world. Their aim is to drive a wedge between peoples of different cultures and faiths. They must not be allowed to believe that they can succeed.

The legislative framework necessarily involves some intrusions on our traditional individual rights and liberties. That is why it is the task of this parliament to maintain a close watch over the framework to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck and, where necessary, recalibrate it. The opposition supports the ongoing process described by the Attorney-General. However, we note that this discussion paper, as just outlined by the Attorney, is not the delivery of the long-promised white paper, and it must be asked why it has taken so long to arrive only at this preliminary point in the process. Nevertheless, the opposition will carefully consider the measures contained in the discussion paper and the public participation that we hope it will generate.

I note that some legislative initiatives have already commenced—in particular, the National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2009, currently being considered by a Senate committee. That bill does not seem entirely consistent with the parliamentary joint committee’s recommendation, but, as I have said, it is the task of this place to subject our suite of national security laws to particular scrutiny, and that process is evidently underway already.

The opposition accepts that it is appropriate to consider extending the scope of the existing laws in a number of respects—for example, expanding the definition of a terrorist act to include psychological harm, creating a terrorist hoax offence, permitting prosecution appeals against bail decisions and expediting court proceedings. However, as the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has stressed on several occasions, those who seek to expand the reach of laws which are themselves invasive bear the burden of persuasion that existing laws are inadequate. Parliaments must always be on their guard against the ratcheting up of laws by the passage of incrementally more invasive laws unless there is a demonstrated clear necessity for doing so. As well, it should always be remembered that when laws which abrogate or compromise traditional freedoms and immunities are passed in response to extraordinary events to deal with imminent threats to national security, they are not intended, nor would it be desirable, to alter the legal status quo forever. Having said that, the opposition does not consider that the threat posed by terrorism is today any less acute than it was when the Howard government reformed and extended the antiterrorism laws in 2002 and again in 2005.

I note the government’s proposal to revisit the sedition laws to more tightly focus them against violent threats and to protect freedom of speech. The opposition will examine these proposals carefully—in particular, the counter-radicalisation proposals which we hope will be informed by the experience in the United Kingdom. These policies, however, can only form part of our response to the threat of terrorism. As David Burchell in Monday’s Australian newspaper remarked:

In the end it will be for those brave souls in the—

at-risk—

… community to win or lose the fight for the hearts of their own young … I doubt there’s any remedy other than the enforcement of those crude but necessary laws that protect citizens from violence by other citizens.

While the opposition look forward to cooperating with the government in the review and refinement of the national security legislation, we will also continue to hold the government to account in ensuring that the existing laws are properly administered. Draconian laws are no substitute for well resourced national security agencies. In the last budget, the Australian Federal Police’s counterterrorism program was cut by $1.4 million, its intelligence program was cut by $3.2 million and funding of its economic and special operations program was cut by $8.1 million. In our view a commitment to counterterrorism is best evidenced by appropriate resourcing, not by ever more invasive curtailments of traditional rights and liberties. The opposition will examine the discussion paper with care and in light of these principles.

See this speech in context