George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Chairman, could I respond to that, before Senator Collins makes her contribution?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Senator Wright, I have told you and I have pointed out to you the relevant paragraph of the explanatory memorandum. The word 'promotes' has its common-speech meaning, so please do not say to the chamber that I cannot tell you what it means, when I have just told you what it means and I have just directed you to a longish discussion about the meaning in the explanatory memorandum. Frankly, Senator Wright, because it has its common-speech meaning you need look no further than the Oxford English Dictionary or the Macquarie Dictionary to satisfy yourself what the word means if you do not already know.

There is no useful purpose to be served by imagining hypothetical instances of what may or may not be caught by a statutory definition expressed in common English, because that is what courts do. We have a separation of powers in this country. It is not for the parliament to define, by legislation or by regulation, every single imaginable instance. That would be bad legislative practice. It is not for the parliament to set out in an act of parliament whether, for example, a T-shirt or a particular form of words is caught by a general statutory prohibition. That is what courts do. They apply the generic language of statutes to the facts of particular cases.

I think we can rely upon and trust the judges and juries to apply this clear statutory language to particular instances. The debate is not served by imagining instances which could conceivably come before the courts and ask, 'What does the statute have to say about that?' That is not our job. It is not my job as the Attorney-General and the person moving this bill; it is not your job or our jobs as senators deliberating upon this bill; it is the job of the courts to apply the law.

Senator Wright, I do not think I need go beyond that. I have already made the point. I do not want to be tedious and repeat myself, but it does not seem to be getting through to you that this is not about freedom of expression. This is about the advocacy of terrorism. The advocacy of terrorism is not the expression of an opinion; it is the injunction to an act of violence. If you cannot see the distinction, Senator Wright, I suspect most senators can.