Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

Clearly, I did hear the question correctly. I used the word ‘ban’. Senator Brown, on his second attempt, substituted the word ‘prohibit’ an organisation. What is the difference? I would be interested in seeing what the Hansard said in relation to Senator Brown’s first attempt at asking the question because I am sure I distinctly heard the word ‘ban’, but I am willing to stand corrected. We will play these tactics of not wasting time, according to Senator Brown, but I am not sure what the difference between ban and prohibit an organisation is.

As I understand it, this legislation does not deal with the banning or prohibiting of organisations. That is in the Criminal Code, which is another piece of legislation. Senator Brown says, ‘It is going to be difficult,’ because I am now taking forward this legislation for the government. I can understand why it is going to be difficult for him, because he is asking about bits and pieces that do not even relate to this particular bill. So I can understand why he now has indicated his desire to raise the white flag on other matters as well.

In relation to the first point that he raised, saying that questions were not being answered, yes, the question was answered. It was answered in a way that exposed Senator Brown’s inability to read the legislation properly, so all he does is repeat the assertion as though somehow, by repeating a false assertion, all of a sudden it clothes itself in truth and gets some gravitas behind it. Mere repetition does not make an assertion a fact. What I have indicated in my previous answer remains.

Can I add—for the further edification if not of Senator Brown then at least of other senators in this place, such as Senator Marshall, who I know takes a very keen interest in this legislation—that it will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis and of course will be assisted by advice from time to time from relevant agencies such as, I would imagine, ASIO. The prescribed authority would need to satisfy itself that that information was sufficient to warrant the particular action foreshadowed in clause 34ZO being taken by the prescribed authority. So the discretion remains with the prescribed authority and the issue is very clearly and squarely directed at addressing potential security concerns.

With great respect to the honourable senator, we know that he does not support this legislation or this type of legislation. That is an important philosophical difference between us, and I accept that. I am willing to say that there is a parting of the ways—if there was ever a meeting of the ways—and that is to a certain extent irresolvable. But to come into this place and ask questions about how certain organisations might be banned or prohibited or to deliberately seek not to understand 34ZO(2) does him and the chamber no justice. Let us have the philosophical debate on whether we need to address some of the issues at stake in this legislation. I invite honourable senators to play a more constructive role in the consideration of these matters.