Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is important that I begin by saying that, much like Senator Leyonhjelm, I am not a lawyer. Only in the rarefied air of the Australian Senate, Senator Leyonhjelm, do we have to apologise for not being lawyers! But I assure you that, while in this place we apologise for not being lawyers, once we leave the Senate chamber it is they who have to apologise for being lawyers!

I have a few questions for Senator Brandis, but I wanted to touch on something that Senator Macdonald said that I think was unintentionally clumsily phrased. Senator Macdonald made the point that he is prepared to give up some of his freedom for security and safety. That is the kind of language and debate that we have heard a lot in recent times when we talk about these things. While I see the point that Senator Macdonald is making, I always get concerned when people use that kind of language because I hold—and I know others in this chamber do as well; maybe almost everyone in this place does—a slightly more sophisticated view, which is that our safety stems from our freedom, not the other way around. I do not like the characterisation that we sometimes make in this place or in simplistic media commentary that there has to be some kind of trade-off between being free and being safe and that there is somehow an equilibrium. While I understand in a practical sense that they sometimes can come into conflict with each other, I think we have to be more sophisticated and more intelligent in how we approach these debates and start talking about how we can have an environment in which we are safe and secure that makes us more free, not less free. That is the challenge that we have in this place.

I also want to note that I have a lot of sympathy for where Senator Wright is going with her amendments. I am going to explain a bit about why I slightly disagree with her. The point that is being made here—that is, making sure the bar is high—is the right one. I did not have a chance to speak in the second reading debate and I do want to speak specifically to the amendments, but in doing so I will ask for a tiny bit of indulgence from the Senate to talk around the issues that relate to the amendment as well as the wording of the amendments. Senator Brandis, I think it is really important as we go forward and look at the amendments in this debate that we acknowledge the real obligation here is not just what we do as law-makers to set the regulations but how we engage with the communities themselves—the Muslim communities in particular, which are obviously more directly impacted by some of the debates that are happening—and how we create an environment of engagement with them. I want to note and put on the record the incredible work of adult of Muslim leaders around Australia, in particular, as I come from Sydney, people like Samier Dandan from the Lebanese Muslim Association, people like Dr Jamal Rifi, people like Maha Abda from the Muslim Women's Association and Muslim community leaders who have actually stepped up and said, 'This isn't part of our community. There is no place for this in our society. We do not support this.' When we have these debates we have a real responsibility to acknowledge and respect the fact that those Muslim community leaders at the coalface who are confronting these issues on a regular and daily basis deserve our encouragement and our acknowledgement of the work they do.

We talk about who the victims are of those who are out there inciting or encouraging or promoting—whatever language you want to use—terrorism. I do not want to forget the fact that the victims of this are not just those people in Syria, Jordan, Iraq and the Middle East region where foreign fighters go to fight. They are the victims, of course, but in a lot of cases you have impressionable young people at a very delicate age who are, let us face it—I would like to use the word that Senator Leyonhjelm used on the outside of parliament, but I do not believe that the word beginning with the letter 'd' and ending in the word 'head' is parliamentary, so I will not use it. We forget that they also can be victims of this. The community becomes a victim. Their families also become victims. In a lot of cases they are impressionable youth, a lot of whom come from south-west Sydney, and—I want to be honest here—a lot of their life experiences up to a certain point were not all that different from some of my life experiences. That makes me wonder about and question what influences they have had and what community influence has at times led those impressionable youths to make those kinds of decisions.

Those in the Senate chamber know me well. I was four when I came to Australia. I came from that part of the world. I was born in a small fishing village in northern Iran. I look at the incredible opportunity and experience that this country has given me and, when I see a 17-year-old youth on the front page of The Daily Telegraph out there making ridiculous statements halfway across the world, I question what led to that happening. Why I support a lot of this is that part of what these laws are doing is acknowledging that the people who also have a responsibility are the people who incite, who encourage, who promote and who push impressionable youth to make foolish and ridiculous decisions. I would say to Senator Brandis that where this legislation is going on that front is a good step and that the implicit acknowledgements we can make are that there are many victims of terrorism, that there are many victims of this kind of behaviour and that the community itself and the families of these people also become victims. The responsibility should and needs also to lie with them. Do not get me wrong: if people travel halfway around the world to participate in horrible, brutal acts they deserve to be punished and as they commit crimes they deserve to have the full force of the law thrown at them. But the people who are inciting them, the people who are pushing them, the people who are promoting them, the people who are using their positions of power over impressionable youth to make them make these foolish and improper decisions also deserve to have punishment. The wording of the amendment concerns me, Senator Wright. I understand the intention of what you are trying to achieve. I have a very strong view that these impressionable youths can also at times be victims, based on the information that they are being provided.

On the idea about how much time there is for the debate, I think Senator Wright makes a fair point about the guillotine and deliberations. I am not an expert in Senate procedure; I do not pretend to be. I do not know what is an appropriate amount of time.