Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note, first of all, that Labor is supportive of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007. We will be voting for it in the House of Representatives and also in the Senate, but we will be moving some amendments consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes that the existence of PG-rated terrorist material came to light in April of 2005, and condemns the Attorney-General for taking more than two years to act to protect Australian children from this material, and notes that this Bill could have been advanced two years ago;

(2)

notes that it is completely unacceptable for the Attorney-General to sit on his hands for two years while material which exists to brainwash children into acts of terrorism is freely and lawfully distributed in Australia; and

(3)

notes that, under the government’s hand-picked Classification Board and Classification Review Board, a situation has evolved where material that openly praises and advocates terrorist acts can be given a rating as low as ‘PG’”.

The aim of the legislation is to provide greater clarity as to whether or not terrorist material must be refused classification by the Classification Board of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The bill will insert a new section 9A into the act, which provides that material which advocates terrorist acts must be banned. The new section also provides the criteria that will be used to determine whether or not material advocates the doing of a terrorist act, specifically, whether it: (a) directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act; (b) directly or indirectly provides instruction on the doing of a terrorist act; and (c) directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person, regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment—within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code—that the person might suffer, to engage in a terrorist act.

The report of the Senate committee recommended that changes be made to paragraph (c) to remove the phrase ‘regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person may suffer’. This is an amendment that Labor will move, and I will return to those Senate committee recommendations shortly.

Proposed new section 9A(3) provides clarification of this. It provides that the section does not apply if the depiction or description could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of a public discussion or debate or is entertainment or satire. So material which is produced genuinely for public debate or is produced for entertainment and satire will not fall under the aegis of proposed section 9A.

The bill originates from revelations earlier this year that films advocating terrorist acts of martyrdom and jihad had in fact been rated PG by the Office of Film and Literature Classification after referral of the material by the Australian Federal Police. In response to this, the Attorney-General firstly called on the states and territories to amend the classification laws and subsequently released a discussion paper on material that advocates terrorist acts, which has resulted in this bill.

Labor’s response was to call on the minister to immediately refer the films to the Classification Review Board on the grounds that the material promoted and incited matters of crime or violence. However, I do note that the Sydney Morning Herald had revealed the existence of these movies two years ago. At that time, the Attorney-General promised that he would act but then did nothing for a year until he wrote to the states to request action on the National Classification Code. Surprisingly enough, the Attorney-General has now decided that it is time to act, three months out from an election—indeed, perhaps less than three months out from an election.

Rather than bringing forward this legislation when the situation became public knowledge two years ago, and rather than acting to protect Australians from this material at that time, the government and the Attorney have instead chosen to debate this legislation in the final sitting weeks before an election. I say to the Attorney and the government that they should not try to point the finger of blame at the states for this delay, for not agreeing to the proposals which were taken to the SCAG meetings earlier this year. The Attorney knew about the problem for a year before he wrote to the states, so it is a bit rich to sit on the issue for a year and then foist it upon the states and expect them suddenly to agree. Once again, the government is a picture of panic in slow motion. The government has known of the existence of this material for the past two years and until the introduction of this legislation had done precious little in an attempt to remove it.

At this point I want to take a moment to say something about the Classification Review Board. The chief problem facing Australia’s classification regime these days is simply the fact that the government has spent the past 11 years making sure that, instead of community representation, Liberal Party mates are more than well represented on that Classification Review Board. We have now reached the stage where four out of seven members of the review board have either direct or very close links to the Liberal Party. In other words, we have a board that, in large part, is representative not of the community at large but of a narrow political ideology represented in the Liberal Party. How can the Australian community have confidence in the classification watchdog when more than half of its members are representative of such a narrow constituency? The government, as it has done with so many other Public Service institutions that it has had its hands on, has transformed the Classification Review Board into a source of jobs for Liberal Party mates.

I note that in the community there are many who have expressed opposition to this bill. I want to make a couple of comments in the hope of allaying some of those concerns. It is Labor’s opinion that the bill will not improperly or unfairly impact on the legitimate right of the community to debate these issues. I note that there are moves underway at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that will allow for much greater freedom for academics to access the material that has been refused classification. As we understand that many in the community have legitimate concerns regarding the legislation, there are a number of points that need to be made in response to those concerns.

The first point is that the concerns of many in the community opposed to this bill have to be weighed against competing interests, which include the right of the community to protect itself from material which openly advocates violent attacks upon it. The unfortunate and unacceptable situation at the moment is that we have material which openly advocates for young children to become terrorists and which racially vilifies groups, particularly Jewish people, being given a rating of PG. As Australia’s alternative government, Labor takes the threat of terrorism seriously. We will not allow a situation to evolve where material, such as Hamas’s infamous Mickey Mouse and Jihad bee characters, indoctrinates young Islamic children into committing acts of violence.

I point out that this bill belatedly arose out of a situation in which a DVD urged young children to become terrorists and martyrs yet had been given the same rating as The Neverending Story or Star Wars. There is a serious and legitimate concern about freely allowing material which openly purports to turn children into holy warriors or terrorists to circulate. While there is a general presumption in our society and in the Classification Code that adults should be able to see and read what they wish, there have always been limits on that right, and our society has endorsed those restrictions over time. On balance, we believe that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between the competing desires of public safety and the rights of adults to see and read what they wish.

The second point I would like to make is that there are legitimate uses of this material—for academic, security and intelligence purposes. I note that some have called for an exemption for academics from the provisions of this new bill. However, I am advised this cannot be achieved for technical reasons. While it is the Commonwealth which classifies the material, it is the states or territories which provide penalties for its distribution. So this is not something which we can achieve directly here, through federal legislation.

However, I would note that there are currently proposals before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General looking at ways to allow academics and others with a legitimate interest to legally access material that has been rated RC. I hope that the Attorney at some point will be able to provide some further insights into that matter. It is clearly an important issue that needs to be properly addressed. In federal Labor’s view, this is an appropriate way to progress the issue. We support the SCAG process. I understand that the proposals before SCAG do go a long way towards eliminating many of the concerns that have been raised in this area.

The third point I would like to make is that this legislation in many respects only clarifies what could be fairly regarded as the existing position. The National Classification Code, as it stands, already provides that material that counsels, praises, urges or instructs in matters of crime or violence must be refused classification. As advocating terrorism and terrorist acts are already offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, the effect of the legislation is largely to clarify the situation of material that promotes and incites terrorism. The effect of the scheme would be to streamline the process for police investigations of this material. If the police believed that material advocated a terrorist act—again, already an offence under the Criminal Code—they would be able to refer it to the Office of Film and Literature Classification for their consideration and subsequent classification.

Finally, I make the point that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended a change to the legislation to make it easier for the material to be classified. I have touched on this briefly before. But a problem arises in clause 9A(2)(c), which provides that material must be banned if ‘it directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person—regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person might suffer—to engage in a terrorist act’. The Senate made this recommendation after receiving submissions, including from the Classification Review Board, that this clause would be difficult to enforce. They said:

It is difficult to envisage circumstances where the review board might objectively assess how a teenager, for example, or a person with some mental impairment might react to praise of a terrorist act.

The committee ultimately recommended the removal of this clause from the bill. Labor supports that view and will be moving amendments in the Senate in an effort to achieve that outcome.

I again remind the House that for the last two years the current government has allowed material of this kind to be freely circulated within Australia. That is a concern. Action on these matters could have and should have been taken much earlier. However, the legislation that is before the House is appropriately adapted to the twin tasks of providing proper guidelines for the classification of terrorist material and ensuring that the principle that adults should prima facie be able to read and view what they want is also upheld.

When the bill is before the Senate, we will be moving the amendment to which I have referred. I would encourage the government and the Attorney-General—who I am pleased to say is in the chamber, for which I thank him—to give consideration to the adoption of Labor’s amendment, which addresses a concern noted by the committee, including a number of senators from his own party. Labor, as I said, will be supporting the bill.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007. It gives me no great pleasure to follow the member for Brisbane. The member for Brisbane spoke about the Liberal Party having a narrow constituency, but perhaps it has eluded him that, on this side of the House, we have representation from nurses, policemen, milkmen, doctors, lawyers and motor mechanics—unlike the situation opposite, where trade union hacks litter the opposition benches at a time when less than 17 per cent of the workforce in the private sector is unionised. This is the situation in a party that has been gutless and stuck in a previous century and refuses to reform its party structure to allow within its ranks genuine, fair representation of the Australian community. They know it, and they are embarrassed by it. The member for Brisbane’s bold claim that the Liberal Party has a narrow constituency does indeed ring very hollow.

The member for Brisbane also spoke about the threat of terrorism. I could not help but sense yet again Labor saying ‘me too’. But let us stop for a minute and think: had the Labor Party been in government instead of the coalition over the last few years, would we have had the myriad of security measures that this government has taken? The answer is no.

They like to say, ‘We’re exactly the same as the coalition.’ They like to say, ‘We will be just as strong on security and terrorism.’ But we know, and in their hearts the Australian people also know, that this is wrong, that this is false. It does not matter how many times and how loudly the Labor Party say, ‘We are just as strong against terrorism as the coalition’; in their hearts the Australian people know it is not true.

When the Attorney-General presented this bill to the House in June, there was a view around the parliament that perhaps we would not need to proceed with the bill as the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General would be meeting in July and this issue would be resolved with amendments to the National Classification Code and guidelines, which require the consent and agreement of the states and territories. That meeting of the state and territory attorneys-general occurred on 27 July this year, exactly one year since the standing committee had previously met. It should be noted that New South Wales and South Australia were the only two states who agreed to support the amendments to the classification act that were proposed by the Australian government.

The Attorney-General is on record as saying that he would rather have dealt with the matter under the provisions of the National Classification Code and guidelines than under the classification act. But, as the National Classification Scheme is a cooperative disposition with the states and territories, all state and territory attorneys-general and the Commonwealth Attorney-General must agree to the provisions contained in the code and the associated guidelines.

Let no-one be confused as to the lengths to which the Commonwealth Attorney-General has gone in seeking the agreement of the states and territories to amend the classification laws landscape. Indeed, much of his current role is taken in negotiating with all sorts of individuals within his party and between governments to get cooperation and agreement on essential legislation in the national interest.

This process has been going on for more than 12 months. In fact, on 27 July 2006, the Commonwealth Attorney-General noted that he was pleased that, after a meeting of the state and territory censorship ministers, the states were ‘willing to support a fresh look at the classification scheme’. Yet 12 months later, they did not agree to such important changes. It is like Victoria’s approach to the National Plan for Water Security all over again. You can just smell an election in the air when state Labor governments become recalcitrant and work against the national interest just to support their union hack mates in the federal parliament.

It is surely not a fanciful policy ideal to ensure that material advocating and supporting terrorism be illegal in our country. Why has it taken the states more than 12 months to come to terms with this basic policy ideal? We are not dealing with fairytales here. We are dealing with the very materials that advocate acts of terrorism. This bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to require that publications, films and computer games that promote terrorist activity and terrorist acts be refused classification. This measure will essentially make it illegal to deliver, promote or sell such material in Australia. It is clear that the Australian government is serious about ensuring that material which supports and promotes terrorist activities will not be legally available in Australia.

Of course, concern has been expressed that this legislation may impinge on the notion of free speech. This is misguided as the proposal put before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General clearly included provisions that would have ensured that these new provisions would not encroach or infringe upon our much valued freedom of speech or mainstream popular culture. In society we often say that prevention is better than cure. When we are dealing with terrorism, it seems that it is often prevention which is the hardest battleground to conquer.

Once again, some in the filmmaking industry and the publishing industry need to realise that these provisions are not intended to limit the authentic operation of their democratic right to free speech, nor are they intended to limit writers, publishers or filmmakers in dealing with sensitive subject matter in an informative manner. There are protections in the act for public discussion and debate, along with investigative journalistic work and other things such as historical analyses. However, the government believes that material which goes beyond this—material which might directly praise terrorist acts or might inspire, provoke or instigate terrorist activity—clearly needs to be dealt with under the Classification Act to ensure this material is free from the hands of those in our society who wish to do harm with evil intent.

We need to do everything we can to improve our laws to prevent material that glorifies terrorism by removing its circulation within our community. This is a basic responsibility we have as a national government: to ensure that we take these preventative measures in the national interest and in the interests of the safety of our communities right across Australia.

So I take the cries from prominent actors, academics and celebrities who claim that actions such as these are too draconian or an encroachment of civil liberties with a grain of salt. As the Attorney-General noted in his second reading speech on this bill, this is a very serious issue. He has noted that it is important to strike the right balance on matters such as this. On this matter I agree with him entirely. But that does not mean we should not take strong peremptory action in condemning terrorist acts, which are tightly defined under the Criminal Code, and the published material which might inspire terrorism.

The Attorney-General should be commended for bringing this matter to fruition. Whilst the government would have preferred that the states and territories came on board through amending the Classification Code, this was not to be the case as interstate egos, a federal election and other priorities got in the way. This is an issue that is far too important to get bogged down in petty politics. When passed, this bill will allow the Australian government to be in a better position to deal with material which advocates terrorist acts and we should support this wholeheartedly. I commend the bill to the House.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for Brisbane and Indi for their contributions to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007. I particularly thank the member for Indi because I think her contribution was very measured, sensible and a constructive contribution to a debate that is of the utmost importance. I will come back to the member for Brisbane shortly, but let me just make it very clear that governments do have a responsibility to do everything possible to improve security to deal with potential terrorism threats in Australia. Waiting for a terrorist attack to occur is unacceptable, and I have been concerned for some time about the influences within our society that lead people into terrorism. We need our laws to deal with material that encourages people to commit terrorist attacks, and that is what this bill is about.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 amends the Classification Act so that material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be refused classification. Material that has been refused classification cannot be legally sold, exhibited or displayed in Australia. There is significant doubt and uncertainty whether the current classification laws adequately catch material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. What is clear is that something needs to be done. I would like to point out that this bill was not how I wanted to resolve the issue. I made it clear in my second reading speech that this bill would not proceed if the state and territory governments did not agree to amendments to the Classification Code and guidelines.

However, the states and territories have been anything but cooperative. I first sought their agreement over a year ago and have continued to press the issue in good faith since then. I was hopeful that agreement could be achieved at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting in July this year, but unfortunately the states and territories continue to frustrate the process, and I am not willing to indefinitely wait to address this problem. It is disappointing that the Commonwealth has been forced to go it alone on this issue. The states are clearly divided. New South Wales and South Australia indicated their support for the proposal. The National Classification Scheme requires the unanimous support of all governments. That is why the initiative failed. I want to make clear that New South Wales and South Australia did indicate their support. The states and territories are clearly divided on this issue.

In thanking members who have contributed to this debate, let me deal with the member for Brisbane very directly. I am quite disappointed by his amendment. He is not without accurate information in relation to the chronology of events in this matter. I was asked a question by his colleague in the other place—I assume he talks to the shadow Attorney, Senator Ludwig—and I answered on 24 May questions that went to this very issue.

I might table a chronology of events for the benefit of the House. It is a chronology which identifies that what happened in 2005 is that there was a discussion between me and Ray Hadley on radio station 2GB about the sale of books inciting terrorism, our sedition laws and also the classification process. I took steps following that matter back in July 2005 to have the AFP examine eight publications and one film, and they determined that no offences had been committed. The AFP provided material in December to the Classification Board for assessment, and they classified the film ‘PG’ and the publications ‘Unrestricted’. The AFP consulted with the DPP and then examined the material against the recently amended sedition laws. I requested advice and I received that. Separately, I applied to the Classification Review Board for a review of the classification of the eight publications and one film. I wrote to censorship ministers in June 2006, putting them on notice that this was an issue that I thought the censorship ministers should consider. The Classification Review Board did refuse classification for two publications. They reclassified the other six publications ‘Unrestricted’, and the film remained ‘PG’.

So it can be seen that I was very active in dealing with these issues. It can be said quite clearly that it is quite inappropriate to offer any criticism of me, in the form of the amendment, for delaying this matter and sitting on my hands for some two years, as suggested. It is quite inappropriate, given that the member had the chronology available to him, to draw those conclusions.

I notice that in his comments he went on to say that the extent to which academics might be able to access material that is seen to be advocating terrorism, for academic pursuits, is an issue that ought to be addressed. That was an issue that I put on the agenda for censorship ministers to deal with. It was an issue that I thought was appropriate to be examined. I notice that the shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, says that this is not an issue that the Commonwealth should deal with unilaterally and that I should continue to work with the states and territories. So on the one hand he says that I should work with the states and territories and continue to suffer the frustration of their inertia—and I might say that they are very slow to deal with these issues; that is, the praising and advocacy of terrorism acts in material—but on the other hand he says that I should in some way be condemned because I had endeavoured to treat with his Labor colleagues in state and territory governments.

I make it very clear that this is not an issue in which any delay can be sheeted home to me. It is an issue in which there has been very clear frustration of the process by certain Labor attorneys, and that indicates to me quite clearly that the Labor Party across this nation is not serious about dealing with terrorism issues. I was faced with a situation in which I could only get New South Wales and South Australia to support me, and people were coming into this chamber and saying: ‘Look, this is an important measure. You’ve been sitting on your hands. You should’ve been dealing with it and you should be criticised for it.’ And then they foreshadowed an amendment that the opposition intended to move in the Senate—not in this chamber, but in the Senate—which would effectively weaken the measures! They say they support the measures, but then they want to weaken the measures—and they do so very deliberately when they say that they would support an amendment that would effectively delete the measure that says that those who are looking at these issues should have regard to a person’s age and mental impairment when they look at the impact that material advocating terrorism might have on them.

I want to deal with that issue quite deliberately. This bill is not about restricting freedom of speech; it is about ensuring that material advocating terrorist acts is no longer legally available. The bill takes into account submissions received during the widespread consultations. The original proposal was modified to address concerns expressed about its scope. In particular, section 9A(3) of the proposed bill was added to make it clear that material that does no more than contribute to debate or public discussion or is of no more than entertainment value or satire is not material to which this provision is intended to apply. The explanatory memorandum states clearly that the provision is only intended to capture material which goes further than that and actually advocates the doing of a terrorist act. As I said, I did, as always, happily see the bill referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to delete reference to ‘regardless of his or her age or mental impairment’ from the proposal.

The government considers the amendment proposed by the committee unnecessary. In fact we think it would be highly undesirable because the Classification Scheme requires boards to consider the context of material and its target audience. Paragraph 9A(2)(c) makes certain that, in assessing whether there is a risk of a person engaging in terrorist acts, boards do not inappropriately consider only an average or ordinary person. The fact is that terrorist organisers make material available with a view to encouraging the naive and, in some cases, the mentally impaired to participate in terrorist acts—in particular, suicide bombing. The government believes that if the criteria is pared back in the way proposed by the opposition, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board will make decisions with reference to whether the material presents a risk to the ordinary or average person. This measure would not be effective if that were adopted, and I would hope that the opposition would reconsider its approach on this matter. Let me make it very clear: this measure would not be effective unless boards consider those who are more vulnerable to this sort of material. I make it very clear that I would not want to be the one who finds that somebody who was mentally impaired picked up some of these messages and set off to carry out a suicide bombing here in Australia—influenced by material of that sort, which we could have done something about.

This is a major issue, as far as I am concerned, with the opposition. They are about putting in place measures that would be inadequate to protect the Australian community. Yet they come in here and say, ‘We’re not opposing the bill.’ It is clear that they see the bill as one that ought to be watered down. If you look at the way in which the Labor Party are looking at these issues across the nation, what you see is that they are clearly divided. We have the New South Wales government saying, ‘Look, we support you.’ The South Australian government says, ‘We support you.’ What does that say about Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, the ACT or even the Northern Territory? What I say is that the Labor Party across this country are clearly divided about the urgency and the need to deal with these issues. They were prepared to frustrate this in the committee process. They have the audacity to come in here and suggest that I have been in some way derelict in my responsibilities because I saw fit not to play what they accuse us of being engaged in—that is, a blame game. But when you sit down and try to talk about the issues and work them through, you find it a very frustrating process. I am deeply disappointed that the opposition want to play around with this sort of issue. They pretend that they are just as concerned about these questions as the government, but they seek to undermine the legislation by amendments and they condone the actions of their colleagues in the states, who clearly were not prepared to come to the party on dealing with these issues.

Finally, I will conclude with some general comments about the scope of the bill. The provisions do set a high hurdle for material to be refused classification. Some have expressed concerns about the ease of applying the provisions. The provisions provide a clear set of elements for the Classification Board and the review board to consider when making decisions on these matters. It is important that people understand that, to be refused classification, material must advocate the doing of a terrorist act. These are the two terms that are defined in the bill. These are precisely defined terms, taking their meaning from or directly adapting the Criminal Code provisions which were agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments following widespread consultation when introducing antiterrorism laws in 2005. The meaning of these terms should be consistent with their meaning in the Criminal Code. Terrorist acts are a specific and highly dangerous threat to Australian society. The government believes very firmly that material that advocates that people undertake such acts should not be legally available and that the measures in this bill will achieve this objective. I commend the bill very strongly to the House. I hope it will receive a speedy passage and I hope that the opposition will reconsider their proposals to move amendments in the other place.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the member for Brisbane has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.