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

On behalf of the Democrats, I move amendment (8) on sheet 5373:

(8)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 6), at the end of section 9A, add:

        (1)    A person (the applicant) may apply to the Classification Review Board for access to material which has been classified RC if the purpose of the access is to review or analyse the material for educational or scholarly purposes and the Classification Review Board may grant access in accordance with the subsection.

        (2)    An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the review of a decision of the Classification Review Board under subsection (1).

        (3)    The regulations may prescribe:

             (a)    the procedures for application and review; and

             (b)    conditions for the release of material which will safeguard the capacity to undertake educational or scholarly review or analysis while limiting the circulation of RC material.

This amendment relates to a review for educational purposes. We believe this amendment will prevent the unnecessary restriction of public analysis and discussion of such material. A decision by the Classification Review Board is of course reviewable by the AAT. The amendment that we have proposed allows regulations to prescribe:

             (a)    the procedures for application and review; and

             (b)    conditions for the release of material which will safeguard the capacity to undertake educational or scholarly review or analysis while limiting the circulation of RC material.

In my remarks in the second reading debate I put on record the Democrats’ concern at what we perceive as the failure of the legislation to address whether or not academics and indeed policymakers may be able to access banned material for academic or policy research. Certainly, there were a number of insights provided to the Senate committee, in various submissions to the Senate inquiry, which highlighted the positive need to provide academics with access to banned materials for study purposes. The examples included: the removal of books from university library shelves, where the books had been introduced by a historian to help his students to understand jihad; and the questioning by the AFP of a university student studying the prevention of terrorism. We thought they were completely extraordinary examples.

Limiting access to books on terrorism, we believe, will hinder the ability to understand and criticise the ideas expressed in them. This is clearly a problem not only for academics and scholars but for the community at large, which depends upon quality research to understand better the social and security challenges facing our nation. The Democrats oppose the restriction of materials for genuine academic or policy research. Hence the amendment before us, which is an attempt to deal with what we consider to be some clear, obvious and important exemptions.