Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Our entire system of government is built around the notion of the separation of powers. It's constructed that way to prevent politicians from engaging in corruption and using their office against the public interest. We've got checks and balances that make sure that no single minister is able to amass too much power. For our system to function properly, no minister should be able to set themselves up as judge and jury. Of course, if there was a list of ministers that we might want to trust with that power, Minister Peter Dutton would be dead last on that list.

Yet that is what this bill does, and it does it all in the name of national security and bipartisanship. It is that bipartisanship that has got us into the mess that we're in today. We have seen a bipartisan consensus between the Liberal and Labor parties so that anything with the term 'national security' cannot even be debated. We know that if people have committed a crime then they should be charged in a court of law, and, if found guilty, sentenced to a term of imprisonment if that crime is punishable with that sentence. Instead, what this bill asks us to do is to push that fundamental responsibility off onto other countries to manage.

Well, we don't support that. If we truly want to make the world a safer place then what we should do is ensure that people who commit crimes are brought home and monitored in Australia, not cut loose in the very countries in which they're most likely to engage in violence and are least able to be brought to justice. This law has the potential to create two classes of Australian citizen and to apply to children as young as 14. That's not what this country is about. We don't treat children like that, and yet that's what this bill asks us to do. How can it possibly be in the best interests of a child as young as 14 to bar them from re-entering their country of birth? If what we want to do is to draw these children away from radical and extremist ideologies, what better way than to bring them here, back into Australia, where they have family and social support networks, and where we can ensure that they are able to function as decent citizens in a decent country?

National security, for too long, has been something that this government has used as an opportunity to try to push what is a radical, dangerous agenda through this parliament and use it as a wedge to attack the Labor Party. I expect that sort of nonsense—that garbage—from Minister Dutton. It's clear that they don't have an agenda in this parliament, so what better agenda than to do everything they can in the first week that this parliament is debating serious business than to put forward bills that try to attack their political opponents? But that is no way of running a country. We saw it earlier this week when it came to the drought reform package and we're going to see it later this week when it comes to the treatment of activists, of people standing up for improving animal welfare standards in this country. And we're seeing it right now, with this government doing everything they can to try to force the Labor Party into supporting a position that they know the Labor Party have already expressed concerns about.

This legislation was debated through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We have grave concerns about that committee. It's a black box. It's not open to members of the crossbench or the Greens. Evidence is heard in camera; we're not privy to the arguments that are made that lead to recommendations that almost always ensure that legislation that restricts people's freedom is passed. And even that committee—that committee, that almost always supports, with few changes, national security legislation—expressed concerns about the bill that we're debating today, and it made a series of recommendations that it should be amended. The Labor Party have expressed concerns that the government is ignoring the recommendations of that committee. And if the PJCIS is making recommendations that a law needs to be changed, we know that there is something wrong with that piece of legislation! And yet, despite the fact that those recommendations have been made and despite the fact that we've heard from the shadow Attorney-General that he has grave concerns about that legislation, they're going to give the government another blank cheque. They're going to give the government full support for a piece of legislation that they've expressed grave concerns over.

When is the Labor Party going to stand up to this shocking government? Last week, you turned your back on 100 years of progressive taxation, 100 years of support for using the tax system to ensure we address economic inequality. This week you're turning your back on 800 years of separating power away from the hands of one person. You're turning your back on some of the fundamental tenants of western Liberal democracy that say we should never concentrate too much power in the hands of a single individual. Why? It's because you're afraid. You're afraid of looking like you're weak on national security. Well, you won't be weak on national security. You'll be strong on standing up for the individual rights of every citizen of this country.

The test that should be met here is a test that is one that we put before courts of law. We don't want to leave these decisions up to ministers in this parliament, because we know that some of them—and, indeed, this minister—will use that power to score craven political advantage. Are you really willing to sacrifice a separation of powers and the lives of young Australians just to make sure the coalition can't run an ad three years from now saying that the Labor Party's soft on terror? Take a stand, for goodness sake. People right around the country are crying out for someone to take it up to this government.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you don't beat the Tories by becoming just like the Tories. That's what Labor seems to be doing. The Labor Party lost an election, but it's behaving like there was a hostile takeover of the Labor Party by the Liberal Party. We're disappointed with the outcome of the election. But toughen up. Show some courage. Grow a spine. People around the country, voters are asking, 'What do you stand for?'

We've got a responsibility in this place to stand up for the things we believe in. To get on the radio in the morning and say that you've got grave concerns about the government's legislation is one thing, but it means nothing if you're going to vote for it. We have a responsibility in this place to oppose bad laws, and we have a responsibility in this place to look after people who don't have a voice.

I am sick and tired of standing up in this chamber and being the voice of the only party prepared to speak against bad legislation and then vote against bad legislation. You spent an election campaign talking about economic inequality and how the tax system was rigged to benefit people on high incomes. What did you do when you came into the joint? You worked with the coalition to hand a whacking great big tax cut to the wealthiest Australians!

Before the election, you said the drought fund was going to line the pockets of National Party mates and that you wouldn't support the drought fund for that reason—because it was ripping money out of infrastructure to support the big corporate irrigator mates of the National Party. And what did you do when you come back in here? You voted for the thing! Before the election, it was a good thing that the coal industry was coming to an end, according to Richard Marles. Apparently now, according to Richard Marles, we should be celebrating the coal industry and the contribution it makes to the Australian economy!

Well, we've had a gut full of it. We've had a gutful. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is only one voice in this parliament that will take it up to the coalition. We're not going to roll over just so that the Prime Minister can tickle our tummies, just so that we might look like we're soft on national security legislation. You know where that leads. It leads to journalists raiding the offices of the ABC. That's where it leads—the slow and gradual creep to a police state. Well, if you don't want to lead the opposition to this rotten, terrible, stinking government, the Greens will do it for you.

Debate interrupted.