Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor welcomes this important report by the Australian Law Reform Commission on Australia’s sedition law. Few would disagree with the words of Irene Carr, Secretary General of Amnesty International, when she said in Adelaide on 8 September 2004:

... we live in an unsafe, an unfair and an endangered world.

I do not question the fact that most humans wish for a better world, one that is safe and fair and not endangered. I accept that the threat of terrorism and community violence represents a serious threat to this wonderful, complex society that we in this parliament are fortunate to represent. I do, however, disagree with Mr Ruddock if he thinks that the new sedition laws enacted last year will help to ensure a safe and fair society. Labor supports laws that will help Australia combat the threat of terrorism and community violence. These laws, however, must not compromise the very freedoms they were intended to help protect. This is so fundamental to the democratic ideal. The President of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said that the new sedition laws are:

... the most dangerous threat to our democratic system in our history.

It is no wonder, then, that the Australian Law Reform Commission has labelled its review of sedition laws in Australia Fighting words: a review of sedition laws in Australia. Ruddock’s words show what he will do with the words of Australians.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I draw your attention to the need to use the minister’s title.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We must now fight for our right to speak words in freedom. The ALRC sees the very real potential for Mr Ruddock’s ill-conceived laws to undermine the freedoms that are at the core of our rich and diverse society. I will take a moment to read from the report:

The ALRC shares the concern that these provisions do not draw a clear enough distinction between legitimate dissent—speech that ought not to be interfered with in a liberal democracy—and expression whose purpose or effect is to cause the use of force or violence within the state.

It is clear that, without important amendments, the sedition laws have the potential to be used in controlling Australia’s media, arts and entertainment groups and anyone else who may wish to engage in some good old-fashioned political dissent. The laws create de facto censorship through the threat of prosecution.

What is ironic about the way in which the ALRC report came into being is that the government chose to ignore democratic voices of concern in the first place. The Senate committee chaired by Liberal Senator Marise Payne which reviewed the legislation recommended that the sedition law be removed from the antiterrorism bill of which it was a part. This inquiry was restricted to only three days of hearings, yet over 300 written submissions were received, such was the concern at the provisions. The committee’s voice was joined by those of media commentators, the arts community and members of the Australian legal community. The laws were rushed through parliament on an agreement, cobbled together by the minister and coalition senators, that a review would be conducted by the Law Reform Commission. Announcing the need for a review of laws before those laws had even been passed brings to my mind images of carts and horses—not knowing the natural order of things.

Of course, now that the bill has become law, Mr Ruddock is under no real obligation to follow the recommendations of the ALRC and, indeed, I believe he has indicated that he does not intend to. Fighting words makes key recommendations which should not be ignored by Mr Ruddock. The recommendations mirror the concerns initially raised by those voices of reason before the law was passed. They are aimed at ensuring the freedom of expression integral to public debate in our strong and fair democracy, the very thing that poor, reactionary legislation has the capacity to undermine.

Let us make the distinctions clear between what are acts of incitement to violence and threats of force and what are legitimate forms of democratic engagement. If we are to enact laws of this nature, let them at least be scrupulously drafted so that they add to our society’s strength rather than detract from it. Let us be certain that laws such as these do not give any Australian government, now or in the future, the capacity to gag public debate. The Howard government has shown its willingness in the past to circumvent the truth for its political benefits—for instance, the ‘children overboard’ scandal and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq matter. Let us hope that perhaps they may yet learn to treat the Australian public with the respect it deserves.

Labor voted against the sedition laws. Our position is vindicated by the ALRC’s review of these laws. The government should reflect on this important report, accept that they got it wrong and make the changes needed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Law Reform Commission report Fighting words: a review of sedition laws in Australia. Labor welcomes this report and, in doing so, reminds those in the chamber of the unfortunate way these laws were rushed through the parliament by this government last November—legislation that could have been reviewed by the Australian Law Reform Commission before it went to a vote in the parliament.

Labor opposes the sedition laws being part of the antiterror laws and the amendments that were made to them. The sedition provisions were opposed, too, by a Senate committee that comprised opposition and government senators. Media organisations, arts organisations, community organisations, lawyer groups and many members of the general public opposed these sedition provisions that formed part of the legislation.

The ALRC report confirms what Labor knew all along: the term ‘sedition’ should be removed from federal criminal law; these sedition laws are ill conceived and do not do the job of protecting Australia in the way that they should.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this section of the debate has expired.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.