Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Given the global security environment, I think it is fair to say that many Australians have been prepared to cut this government a bit of slack. Many Australians, it seems, accept—albeit reluctantly—the need for Australia to be part of a genuinely multinational military intervention against Islamic State in Iraq, and I think many Australians would agree that our security legislation should be constantly monitored and updated from time to time as and when required. For instance, as technology changes there is a good argument to be made that we should make our legislation technology-neutral so it does not have to be amended every day with each new gadget that is invented.

But, rather than understanding the limits that should be imposed on these sorts of changes, the government is overreaching. The government has betrayed the trust that is being put in it by the community to look after our security. The first tranche of security changes that went through this place some weeks ago was a breathtaking demonstration of how this government is betraying the trust that has been put in it by the Australian community. This bill today, the second tranche of the so-called security reforms, is another breathtaking betrayal of the trust that has been put in the government by the Australian community.

This bill today is unwarranted, it is recklessly prepared, it is being rushed through and it is not needed. There are so many problems with this bill, many of which have been very well described by my colleague the member for Melbourne. I will single out a few things that jump straight out at me—thematic concerns I have with this bill. For a start, it lowers the threshold for the arrest of individuals from a belief that a terror crime is about to be committed to a suspicion that a terror crime is about to be committed. Heavens, what's next? Are we going to have a bill next week if there is a hunch, suspicion or worry that one day someone might change their mind and dream of committing an offence?

This lowering of the threshold from belief to suspicion fundamentally undermines our approach to justice in this country. Since when is it or should it be an offence to jail someone potentially for life because we suspect them of something? It is an absurdity. There is very good reason why up until now it has been the law that someone would only be charged and only be prosecuted if there were solid grounds to believe they had committed an offence. To charge them and jail them out of suspicion is patently absurd.

And the punishment that might be awarded is completely and utterly disproportionate. If this bill becomes law—and heaven hope it does not become law—someone could be jailed for life because they are suspected of something. This is the making of a police state. It is a very alarming decay of our justice system and our approach to justice in this country that someone could be punished in such a disproportionate way. They could be jailed for life for being suspected of intending to do something wrong or even just hanging out with someone—perhaps sharing a room in their house with someone who is doing something wrong.

See this speech in context