Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I have got it in the right order now. I was rather quick to jump to my feet earlier to move one of a number of amendments standing in my name on behalf of the Australian Democrats in relation to this bill.

I incorporated my speech last night. As some senators would know, I was talking to around 1,000 ADFA midshipmen and officers instead of attending this debate. Speaking of national security, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to my colleagues, I want to go on record and respond briefly before I address the first amendment on behalf of the Democrats. All of us in this place are capable of acknowledging that terrorism is those things that Coulthard referred to. Whether it is an assault on our freedoms, our liberties or our way of life, it represents an absolute invasion and threat to the things that we hold dear. I think we are all capable of understanding that there is a need for proportionality and that it is important to get the balance right.

I am really getting sick and tired of people who question how this balance is achieved being described as somewhat naive. I understand the attack has just been made on my crossbench colleagues, the Greens, that they do not necessarily care about national security. I do not think we can accuse anyone in this place of not caring about national security, but one thing I will say is that some of us see national security not just as a nebulous concept, an enigma or some big picture. When we talk about terrorism we should not forget that people in the community—indeed, some of us in this place—see it in a very personal and emotional sense, and we are all looking for some answers and some solutions. I want to make this clear again, for the record: as a legislator I am allowed to question the nitty-gritty of these laws, especially when we believe that there is a lack of empirical justification for some of the changes before us and that there is a defective definition in relation to these and to other bills or acts.

It is not just me; it is not just the Democrats; it is not just people in this place. Broader organisations have been critical of the legislation before us and of other counterterrorism measures that have been adopted by this government. It is not because we do not care about national security; it is because we do care passionately about reaching that proportionality to which the minister refers, and because there are a number of ways in which we recognise that we address issues such as terrorism. In light of September 11 and of the anniversary that we commemorated last week in this place—not that we really commemorated it, to be quite frank—as I said on record afterwards, I was a little surprised to see that the recognition of September 11 was done in the context only of national security. Nowhere did I see an acknowledgement of the fact that Australians died. Ten Australians died. Friends of people in this place died. I get very frustrated that sometimes we lose that aspect of this debate when attacks take place in the chamber against the state or territory governments or Rudd devotees or apparatchiks or whatever it may be. Anyway, I put in that plea.

I acknowledge the minister’s concerns with the state and territory governments. I do not necessarily endorse them. I note from the second reading address by Minister Ruddock, the Attorney-General, that he also devoted more time in his second reading address to attacking his state counterparts than he did necessarily to putting forward an argument for justifying the need for the legislation. Perhaps, if he had addressed more comprehensively the issue of this power grab and some of the constitutionality questions relating to legislation, it would have been more productive.

I now move amendment (1) on sheet 5373 revised:

Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 15), after subsection 9A(1), insert:

     (1A)    Before making a classification in accordance with subsection (1), consideration must be given to the likely impact of the material, based on an assessment of the class of persons to or amongst whom the material is to be, or is intended to be, or is likely to be published.

This amendment, which has been circulated in plenty of time, is based not on some arbitrary judgement of the Australian Democrats but on a Law Council submission. It means that any material that might be refused classification because it concerns terrorist material must be viewed in context. So the inclusion of the phrase ‘regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment’ in clause 9A(2)(c) suggests that material must be assessed according to how it may be understood by any person and not necessarily an ordinary or reasonable member of its intended audience.

The Democrats and others consider this to be a marked departure from usual practice, and it would place classifiers in the awkward position of placing themselves in the shoes of, say, a child or someone with a mental impairment—a scenario that the Classification Review Board itself raised issues with. Mr Temporary Chairman Barnett, I think you are on record in this place as having queried this. I believe you were satisfied with the government’s response, but I still think there is room for some qualification in relation to the legislation before us. That is why I am seeking to amend clause 9A(1A) to require that decision makers should assess the likely impact of the purported terrorist material ‘based on an assessment of the class of persons to or amongst whom the material is to be, or is intended to be, or is likely to be published’. That is our intent. I do not believe this amendment has the support of the other parties, but it was important for us to attempt to change this proposed section. I commend the amendment to the chamber.