David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

With respect to the matter being on the Notice Paper, if Senator Ludwig were really earnest and genuine in his approach to the government on those sorts of matters, he would, of course, be able to say that he had read the chronology that was tabled in the lower house, which answers every inquiry he has had about that. What he is seeking to hide is that the states have been offered an opportunity to come with us on this and they have simply dragged the chain unacceptably. Senator Ludwig is complicit in that because he knows Queensland is one of the principal offenders. But I would not expect him to advert to that in here.

This amendment by the Labor Party relates to material that directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might lead only the average or reasonable person to commit a terrorist act. It is unacceptable to the government. Let me explain for the benefit of Senator Ludwig what he is suggesting. He is suggesting that an adjudication be made based upon the reasonable person test. This is a lawyers’ feast. The Labor Party and the opposition in this place have very limited understanding of the practical workings of the judicial process, particularly the civil judicial process, and the money involved in these sorts of matters. He is advocating the lawyers’ feast approach. Let us argue what is reasonable; let us call all the evidence. The government says, ‘No, terrorist organisers do not respect age or mental capacity. It is those who are younger, impressionable and with diminished mental capacity who are more frequently targeted to engage in terrorist acts such as suicide bombings.’ This is not about the reasonable man test. This is about enabling the adjudicators to look at the people targeted and to make a more subjective assessment. We need to protect the more vulnerable in the community in matters as serious as this. But, of course, I would not expect the ALP to understand that.

The government also believes that consistency is important across state law. Senate scrutiny committees have indicated on numerous occasions that they are concerned that statutory language should wherever possible have the same meaning when used in different legislation. I do not think I can take it any further. The fact is that the deletions to the bill that the opposition seek really disclose higher and higher levels of naivety.