Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Speaking to this motion, I indicate that this report confirms what the Greens have been saying for five years now on these issues. It shows that there are substantial and fundamental problems with this government’s terrorism legislation and that they have serious implications for human rights in this country.

The Greens have not been party to the development of this report because the Greens are excluded by legislation from participating in the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The government and the opposition work as one when it comes to these issues and Australia’s most secret agencies and they do not want the fresh and independent approach that the Greens would bring to accountability in this area. Nevertheless, in this case of a review of Australia’s security legislation, the committee has been quite critical of the government’s approach. This is despite the fact that the government controls this joint committee and despite the manner in which the government seeks to use national security as an electoral weapon.

This report shows there are big problems with Australia’s terrorism laws that must be fixed. It echoes concerns raised by the Greens back in 2002, when I participated in a Senate inquiry into the legislation which underpins the terrorism laws that we have in this country. It also echoes the finding of the government’s own Sheller review into terrorism legislation, which also found substantial problems, in particular with the power of the Attorney-General to label organisations as terrorist organisations and to therefore criminalise their members and supporters. The Greens opposed the giving of this power to the Attorney-General and we continue to oppose it. This is a view that we share with Anthony Mason, a former Chief Justice, who was reported in the Australian in October this year as saying:

Some limitation or suspension of individual rights is necessary in order to meet the threat of terrorism. But it is of fundamental importance that any intrusion into traditional rights is proportionate to the threat which is apprehended, does not involve the grant of powers that may be used for other purposes and is subject to effective supervision by the courts. Neither ASIO nor the attorney-general is a suitable guardian of individual rights.

That is not the Greens speaking; that is the former Chief Justice Anthony Mason.

Earlier in the year the Greens moved a motion in the Senate to disallow the listing of the Kurdish Workers Party as a terrorist organisation because we agreed with the concerns that had been expressed to this committee. We also agreed with the views of legal and community groups that the impact of the ban far outweighed any benefits in terms of dealing with genuine terrorist threats. Kurdish Australians who are considered refugees precisely because of their association with the Kurdish Workers Party face severe repercussions because of the ban. Kurds who flee their homeland in the future may also be refused refugee status because of this ban, supported by both the major parties in the parliament. It is a terrible irony that Australia supports Kurds in Iraq and yet across the border we label the Kurds terrorists just so that we can get favourable treatment from the government of Turkey. Had these laws been in place in previous times, the ANC in South Africa and the East Timorese resistance movement, now governments of their respective countries, could similarly have been banned in Australia.

The Sheller report is unlike this report in that it suggest handing over the power to ban organisations to a court. This is something the Greens support. We believe it is a step in the right direction. Some of the comments in this committee report reflect some of the concerns the Greens have. The committee makes 26 recommendations on a range of issues in relation to terrorism laws. Nearly all reflect the criticisms made by the community and the legal profession that the terrorism laws radically impinge on human rights in this country. I note in particular the way the committee has highlighted the negative impact on the Arab and Muslim community as a result of the terrorism legislation that now exists in Australia.

The Greens have always supported sensible measures on these issues of terrorism, such as the strengthening of security at airports, which we have supported in this parliament. However, we share the concerns of the community and the legal profession about the way in which our current terrorism laws radically impinge on the human rights of Australians. We have always said that we believe, in the main, that our existing criminal law is the framework we should use to address the challenge that terrorism presents us with. That is the basis that we should be using. Those fundamental tenets that exist in our criminal justice system should be maintained as our defences against the scourge of terrorism that we face. I note that similar comments were made recently in a speech by Malcolm Fraser to Liberty Victoria, in which he spoke about our strongest weapons in the war against terrorism being a defence of our rights and a defence of our liberties.

This is a point that has frequently been made by me in this chamber and by other commentators on human rights, those of the legal profession and people who are concerned about these issues in the community: if we bring in increasing legislation that takes away the power and the right of Australians to interact in the way we have become accustomed to—to be able to speak, to be able to engage in political dialogue and discussion—then we are taking away those very freedoms and democratic principles that this government, the Bush government and other governments speak about wanting to defend. This is why the Greens are critical of the approach taken by the government. And it is why we say that fundamentally underpinning an approach in this country to dealing with terrorism needs to be our criminal justice system, our existing criminal law and the fundamental tenets about not being detained without a trial, about being able to have access to a lawyer, about not having your comments used against you and about the right to silence. These fundamental tenets of our legal system need to underpin the response not only in Australia but around the world to the challenge of terrorism. When we speak about terrorism we speak about criminal acts, such as murder and conspiracy, which exist in our criminal law. That is the basis on which we should be responding to the challenges that terrorism presents to us.

But make no mistake: this report is a test for the government. Will they act on these recommendations, on those of the Sheller review? Will they reform terrorism laws that exist in this country to reflect the concerns that have been put forward in this parliament by senators of all political parties? Will they change our terrorism laws to reflect the concerns that the legal profession as a whole has expressed time and time again, through the Law Council of Australia and other representatives? Each time we have an inquiry into new terrorism legislation we hear from a range of different peak legal organisations in this country about the way in which the legislation being proposed, and passed through the parliament with the support of both the major parties, impinges on our fundamental human rights and takes away those tenets that have underpinned the legal system in this country and in Western democracies around the world. Will the government seek to reform terrorism legislation in this country, to take on board and to consider those concerns put forward by this report, by senators in here and by well-respected community and legal voices? Will they put in place human rights safeguards that have been suggested? On past form I have to say it is pretty unlikely.

The Greens will continue to oppose the government’s use of the war on terrorism to take away and undermine our human rights and the fundamental tenets of our legal system in this country. We want a bill of rights. And we want to support a fair, multicultural society, which is the best defence against the challenge of terrorism. We want to see an independent foreign policy that can address the root causes of terrorism, not inflame them. We need to address those root causes rather than symptom by symptom as we impinge on the human rights framework and the fundamental legal tenets on which this country’s legal system is based.