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

I am afraid that the law of evidence is by its nature a very technical area. So, Senator Wright, with respect it gets you nowhere to say, 'Well, Senator Brandis, you might be technically right about the law of evidence, but effectively this is a reversal of the onus of proof.' This is a technical area, and when you say 'Well, although you are technically right, effectively it is different,' you are coming very close to a Dennis Denuto like observation about it being 'the vibe'. The fact is that the law of evidence—and the principles by which courts determine where the onus of proof lies, and the distinction between the persuasive onus and the evidential onus—is a very technical area. Let us not try to mask our refusal to accept the technicality of the area by reverting to non-technical language.

Senator Wright, contrary to what you say—that this is unprecedented or unknown to the law—it is very common for our law to say that it is prohibited to go to a particular area. Let me give you a few examples. It is against the law of Australia to go to certain areas in South Australia that are used for the purposes of the Australian Defence Force. Indeed—although I am thinking of that particular example inspired by the presence behind me of the distinguished Senator Fawcett—in general it is against the law for a person to go to a military base or to attend upon a military base, without authority to do so. It is against the law, in many instances, for a person to go into Indigenous territories without appropriate permissions. It is, I think you will find, Senator Wright, against the law for people to go to certain areas of the Australian Antarctic Territories without permission. The idea that it is unknown to the law that there should be a prohibition on a person visiting a particular place is, with respect, quite erroneous. It is a perfectly commonplace form of prohibition and a prohibition of that kind has been extended in this particular case to areas declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as satisfying the statutory tests as being no-go zones for Australian travellers. This is essentially because those areas are areas where Australians have no place being, because they are areas under the control of terrorist armies. In a practical sense, that is the way this legislation is going to operate. There are exceptions and defences, as you have acknowledged, but I challenge utterly the suggestion that it is unusual for the law to prohibit a person visiting certain specified localities. That is just not right at all.