Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014. On 15 and 16 November this year Brisbane will play host to arguably the most significant world leaders' summit, the G20. G20 members account for two-thirds of the world's population, around 80 per cent of global trade and, most notably, 85 per cent of the world's economy. Geographically, all the world's populated regions will be represented. The event itself is expected to have around 3,000 media representatives and around 4,000 delegates attend. It will place Brisbane at the centre of the world's attention at that time. It is a significant event that has as been brought to Australia by the previous government, which I will speak about in a moment.

The G20 is the place to discuss global economic and financial matters. The objects of the G20 are threefold: to modernise international financial architecture, to promote financial regulations that reduce risks and prevent future financial crises, and policy coordination between its members in order to achieve global economic stability and sustainable growth. The bill itself clarifies the interaction between the Queensland government's G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and the stand-alone bill proposed here. It was determined by the Queensland government that a separate act was needed because of the extra duties the Queensland Police Service would be facing. Those duties include: security for accommodation venues where meetings are being held, security for official parties and world leaders, motorcade routes and for other official events. That is on top of the everyday work the Queensland Police Service do in providing policing for the general public.

The extra powers granted under the Queensland act and this bill are similar to the ones granted to the APEC meeting in New South Wales in 2007 and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011. This bill deals with any overlap powers regarding jurisdiction issues between state, federal and other authorised persons during the G20. This includes specified locations, such as Brisbane airport. But the important thing to note here is that these powers have a sunset clause built into the federal legislation proposed for the day after the conclusion of the conference.

It is worthy to note the achievements of the previous government in supporting and eventually playing host to this important event. When in government, former Prime Minister Rudd played a substantial role in making the G20 an internationally significant world event bringing together the major economies of the world. It was former Prime Minister Gillard, while at the G20 in Cannes in 2011, who secured the 2014 G20 Summit for Australia.

I note that in Queensland the state Labor opposition supported the Queensland government's bill. The federal opposition will also support the federal government's bill. We, as an opposition, understand the need for the G20 conference to be organised as safely and securely as possible. We want the focus of the G20 to be on the important financial reform tasks at hand. This bill will make sure that any issues between state and federal jurisdictions are resolved so that the G20 can run smoothly.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

  I rise to speak on the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 and to highlight the relationship between this bill and the rights of everyday Australians—rights that are crucial but that, until relatively recently, we perhaps have taken for granted, assuming that they will always be there.

The Australian Greens appreciate that this complementary bill is not of itself a draconian piece of legislation. However, it is legislation which is designed to facilitate laws that definitely are draconian, and that is where our concerns lie. This bill operates to clarify the interaction between provisions in the Queensland G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and existing Commonwealth legislation as they apply to the Brisbane Airport during the 2014 G20 Summit, which will be held in November this year.

The Australian Greens cannot in good conscience support this Commonwealth law, because of the nature of the Queensland state law it is designed to facilitate. Supporting this bill would effectively facilitate the erosion of rights by the Queensland government against its own people that has been occurring and will continue to occur around the G20 summit, and would imply that this erosion of rights is acceptable.

This sorry tale goes back to October last year when the Queensland parliament rushed through the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 ahead of the G20 events which will take place later this year. The Queensland legislation embodies extreme laws which do many oppressive things. They strengthen existing police powers of search and arrest; they declare special security areas in Brisbane and Cairns; they create offences for actions like crossing barriers and disrupting meetings; they exclude local people from their very own areas of residence if they fail criminal history checks; and they ban various objects, including household items, from security areas. It might be understandable that they want to ban whips and weapons, but they also ban cans, jars, banners, reptiles and even eggs. These laws have attracted condemnation as both draconian and impractical from many groups, including civil liberties organisations and legal bodies like the Queensland Law Society

As well as these concerns, the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has considered the Queensland act and notes that it has provisions which potentially engage and limit multiple human rights, many of which we, as a nation, are required to uphold by international obligations that we have voluntarily signed up to. These include the right to life; a prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to security of the person and freedom from arbitrary detention; the right to humane treatment in detention; the right to a fair trial and a fair hearing; the right to privacy and reputation; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to freedom of assembly; and the right to freedom of association.

Given the implications of the Queensland act, the Commonwealth parliament's human rights committee, of which I am a member, has decided to undertake an assessment of its compatibility with human rights and has sought further information from the Commonwealth Minister for Justice.

Many in the community are already clear that the provisions in the Queensland laws unduly restrict the human rights and civil liberties of Queensland citizens and particularly target the rights which are so fundamental to our democracy—the right to peaceful protest and the expression of political opinion. Here we see legitimate security concerns being trumped by legal overreach which is designed to stifle alternative views.

I was very interested to note that one of the first questions and actions in the Senate of my Senate colleague Senator Leyonhjelm was to ask a question regarding the G20 security laws. I hope that he will speak on this today because, avowedly being a person who professes to be interested in rights and freedoms, it will be interesting to see the stance that he takes in relation to this legislation.

It is a matter of legal overreach. There are legitimate security concerns—of course there are—but in this case, clearly, many of the laws are designed to stifle legitimate political opinion which is different to that of those who seek to stifle it. Why else would large banners expressing a differing point of view to that held by Prime Minister Tony Abbott be banned? How is that a security issue?

The G20 summit is in fact a great opportunity for Australia to model a robust democracy, where we do have freedom of expression and we do have freedom of political thought.. It should be a chance to showcase our proud democratic tradition to the world. World nations will be represented at this G20 summit. Instead, we have Queensland laws being extreme and, indeed, only time will tell whether they will even be workable.

The Australian Greens will not be a party to restricting human rights where the restriction is unreasonable, unnecessary and disproportionate .    We will not support this federal G20 bill because we will not facilitate these laws and assist in expanding their scope. Despotic laws like these have no place in our Australian democracy.

I think it is important to give some context to this legislation in terms of an increasing trend we are seeing throughout Australia. As a federal parliamentarian, I respect the responsibility that state legislatures have for law and order. However, it is with alarm that I am witnessing a disturbing trend around Australia across the states and territories. Communities are being increasingly disempowered and having their time-honoured rights stripped away in many cases. I think it is really important that the parliament is cognisant of these changes and can see this trend. I certainly know that there are members of the Australian community who are becoming increasingly aware of it.

So it is that in Victoria we have seen the Napthine government amending its Summary Offence Act earlier this year to attack the right to peaceful protest and the right to assembly by giving the police extensive move on powers among other measures, reminiscent of the worst of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era in Queensland

It is chastening to note that at the time of Nelson Mandela's death, when world leaders had gathered to mourn his passing and pay tribute to his courage and leadership, journalist Jeff Sparrow pointed out in an article in The Guardian that many of the actions that won freedom for his people—that we now laud as being successful and honourable—would now be illegal in Australia.

Sparrow observed:

The right to protest does not matter when everyone agrees with you. It takes no courage whatsoever to praise Mandela in 2013. But in the early days of the anti-apartheid struggle, things were very different.

He points out that in Australia, anti-apartheid activists faced harassment. During the protests against apartheid that took place when South African sporting teams toured Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen called a state of emergency, and unleashed some of the most savage police violence this country has ever seen. That is in my living history. I remember those scenes. Yet it is somewhat chilling to realise that back then Australian legislation was not nearly as draconian as it has since become.

Mandela's recent death saw bipartisan support from Labor and the coalition. But, as Sparrow remarks, there is also bipartisan support from Labor and the coalition for security legislation in Australia that means, for instance, that it is an offence punishable by 25 years in prison to recklessly provide funds to terrorists, or supporters of terrorists, even if they are overseas. He suggests that if that law had been in place 40 years ago it would have been a serious crime to raise money for Mandela—a man committed to the armed struggle in South Africa to achieve freedom for his people.

It has been argued by Monash law lecturer Patrick Emerton that if the antiterrorism laws had been in force in the 1980s—the ones that we have now—it may well have been a criminal offence in Australia, punishable by up to 25 years in prison, to teach members of anti-apartheid organisations to use a photocopier.

If we go to Tasmania, we see that last year the Giddings government legislated to ban anti-abortion protesters from protesting within 150 metres of abortion clinics. But the legislation was not specific to that target. Next time it may be a different protest against a different target. Draconian laws make us all vulnerable. Then, in the heat of the Tasmanian election campaign, the would-be Premier at the time, Mr Will Hodgman, clearly thought it was acceptable to up the ante and committed to introducing mandatory jail terms for environmental protesters who disrupt business.

Jeff Sparrow points out again in the same Guardian article of 11 December 2013:

In the past, even many politicians accepted political protests as a legitimate form of popular expression, a way that ordinary people could shape the direction of the nation.

However, with time it seems that markets have become king and individuals these days are seen more as consumers than as citizens. So street demonstrations have come to be seen not as part of democracy, which they used to be seen as, but as an attack on it, since they inhibit the market exchanges that are taken as society's most important element. In other words, the rights of businesses trump the rights of protesters. Essentially, that is what Hodgman was arguing in Tasmania.

In other states and in the Northern Territory we have seen the wholesale introduction of mandatory sentencing, which imposes minimum mandatory sentences for certain offences. But, despite removing this time-honoured role for judges to exercise discretion and judgement—what they are actually employed to do—by taking into account the circumstances surrounding a particular offence and a particular offender, there is absolutely no evidence that mandatory sentencing reduces crime.

There is much evidence, however, that it leads to manifest injustice in some cases, as in the infamous Northern Territory case that appalled people around Australia in 1999, when Kevin Cook, a homeless person, was sentenced to 12 months in prison under the Northern Territory's notorious three-strikes law that was in effect at the time. His crime? Stealing a towel from a clothes line—12 months in prison. Mandatory sentencing condemns some minor offenders to totally unjust and disproportionate punishments, punishments which actually offend most Australians' sense of what is fair and legitimate.

Back in the 1990s the Northern Territory government were pioneers of mandatory sentencing. They were at the forefront, along with Western Australia, when they introduced mandatory minimum sentences for property crime in 1997. This was a notorious regime. Offenders were imprisoned for 14 days for a first-strike property offence, 90 days for a second and 12 months for a third, irrespective of how minor. So at that time there was a case of a 16-year-old with one prior conviction who went to prison for 28 days for stealing a bottle of spring water. We had the case of a 17-year-old juvenile first offender who went to prison for 14 days for stealing orange juice and lollies, and we had a 15-year-old Indigenous youth who went to prison for 20 days for stealing less than $100 worth of stationery from his school. That young man died in custody while serving his sentence.

Yet, while these laws were in place in the Northern Territory, property crime went up. These laws were then repealed in 2001, and after that property crime went down. That is based on figures from the Office of Crime Prevention, a part of the Northern Territory's Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. But despite the criticism that mandatory sentencing has attracted universally from lawyers and lawyers bodies here and overseas, the Northern Territory government reintroduced mandatory sentencing laws for a second time on Valentine's Day this year. Again, these laws will increase the minimum time that offenders have to spend in prison and restrict the ability of judges to suspend sentences for certain crimes. So their failed experiment is being repeated.

Western Australia too has mandatory sentencing, for assaults against police and public officers and for dangerous drivers who cause death or serious injury during a police pursuit. The Barnett government also wants to introduce mandatory sentences for assault during a burglary. In March this year the Chief Judge of the District Court of Western Australia, Justice Martino, made it clear that he believes that any reduction in sentencing discretion increases injustice. He pointed out that experience has shown that rigidity increases rather than decreases injustice.

In New South Wales mandatory sentences are now imposed for king-hit assaults involving drugs or alcohol, despite the fact that they are totally unproven as a means of reducing crime. The New South Wales Bar Association president, Phillip Boulten SC, has stated:

There's no evidence at all that mandatory sentencing ever decreases the amount of crime that's committed and it has the ability to act unfairly on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

Still, it is the Queensland government that has to get the gold star at this moment in history for its across-the-board attacks on its own citizens' rights and long-standing legal conventions. For this reason, it has been in the news constantly with concerns being raised by the various things that it is doing. The G20 laws are just another egregious example from the Queensland parliament.

Previously, we have seen the so-called 'bikie laws' curtailing freedom of association and imposing punishments, including extensive solitary confinement. These are incursions into civil liberties that should worry us all. Today it may well be bikies, or even ex-bikies who may be trying to turn over a new leaf, but tomorrow it could be any other class or group of citizens being targeted by the state. If we give away the long-standing rights that we have we lose them and they are not there when some of us need them. Freedom of association is something implied in our very Constitution, as the High Court set out in 1997. But this vital implied right is, sadly, not reflected in our state legislatures.

New South Wales and Western Australia have virtually identical provisions to those of Queensland that say if you are under a control order you cannot associate with another controlled member of a declared organisation. Back in my home state in South Australia, it is an offence for any person to associate with a member of a declared organisation more than six times in a 12-month period. Victorian legislation is similar to Queensland's by saying that a control order can prevent a person from associating with a member of a 'criminal' organisation. In the Northern Territory a controlled person cannot associate with another controlled person. All this is in spite of the evidence that members' criminal activities tend to occur independently from the formal structure of motorcycle organisations. But it is only in Queensland at this stage that people are detained under such laws in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day in a cell that is the size of a large dining table, while wearing a pink uniform.

None of this legislation is actually limited to bikie gangs; it can be extended to other organisations. The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act, for instance, includes references to:

… any other group of 3 or more persons by whatever name called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal.

As pointed out by Robert Corr, prosecutor with the DPP, in an article in the Overland of October 2013:

The Queensland Law Society notes this could include sporting groups and book clubs; the onus will be on the accused, rather than the state, to prove that ‘the relevant association is an association whose members do not have as their purpose, or one of their purposes, engaging in, or conspiring to engage in, declared offences’.

And it is only in Queensland, a state which has taken years to recover from the corruption and gerrymandering under the Joh Bjelke-Petersen government, where the government is rushing through laws which will disenfranchise Queenslanders under the guise of electoral reform. The Newman government is introducing the first voter ID laws in Australia while reducing the amount of electoral funding available to smaller parties considerably. Its Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, presides over anti-union lawns which are so extreme that even at the Institute of Public Affairs has condemned them.

Between its attacks on freedom of association and its treatment of prisoners detained under related laws; its attacks on Queenslanders' abilities to participate in democratic processes, like elections and union activities; and its attacks on people's ability to go about their daily lives during the G20, the Newman government's record is terrible. To add insult to injury, the government, the Premier and the Attorney-General of Queensland have been involved in concerted attacks against judges and lawyers who speak out against these human rights abuses and against lawyers who have the temerity to defend those charged with crimes in Queensland.

Constitutional law expert, Professor Gerard Carney, has said that he has never heard of the government in Australian modern history accusing members of the judiciary of living in ivory towers and being unaccountable to the community, saying it is unprecedented and incomprehensible. He is reported on ABC radio as saying:

One of the paramount principles that we have enjoyed is the benefit of is public confidence in the integrity of our judges and our courts.

That is in fact now a constitutional requirement that nothing be done in a way to impair public confidence in that institutional integrity.

To have the Premier come out in those terms is appalling, it damages our constitutional system and the attorney traditionally has had the role to protect the courts from that sort of scandalous comment.

The Greens will not accept erosions of our fundamental rights and freedoms, wherever governments in all Australian jurisdictions are attacking them. We will fight those erosions in whatever forum we can. We will not pass federal laws that enable them, and that extends to this federal G20 bill. The Senate should reject this bill and affirm Australians' rights to participate fully, equally and freely in our democratic society. We should be an example of a robust democracy when other nations converge on Brisbane for the G20 events.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Queensland senator I rise to speak against the G20 Safety and Security Complimentary Bill 2014. I echo the concerns of my colleague, Greens' senator, Penny Wright about the Queensland Newman government attacks on civil liberties and democratic rights.

For two years I have watched as the state LNP government under Campbell Newman has taken my home state of Queensland further and further down a very dark road. Since they were elected in 2012 I have watched the Newman government launch savage budget cuts; sack 14,000 nurses, school teachers and other public servants; roll back a litany of environmental protections; and vilify or isolate anyone who does not share their views. I have watched them impose ever more pernicious and dangerous restrictions on civil liberties, sliding back to the bad old days of Sir Joh.

This G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 would facilitate the imposition of draconian and unnecessary laws in Queensland in relation to the G20 conference under the guise of safety and security. Of course, the safety of everyone, including protesters, at such events is of critical importance. But the Queensland legislation which this bill facilitates goes far beyond what is required. It tramples on the fundamental right to peaceful protest and freedom of assembly. We are being asked not only to ignore the Newman government's continuous disregard for civil liberties but facilitate the implementation of those restrictions by passing this bill. We are being asked to stand by while these laws are waved through. The Greens will not. We will oppose this bill.

The Queensland G20 legislation goes well beyond previous security measures in Australia—beyond those seen at the 2007 APEC conference in Sydney and the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth. By itself, that should ring alarm bells. Police in Queensland already have the power to deal with breaches of the peace, and offences already exist for assault, unlawful assembly and riot. The Queensland Law Society has told us there is no need to create new offences. The laws make it illegal to disrupt any part of the G20. Unfortunately, 'disrupt' is not defined. Presumably it also includes making a noise which can be heard inside the meetings. However much Prime Minister Tony Abbott would like to avoid hearing the many voices calling for stronger action on climate change and compassion for those living in poverty overseas, clamping down on free speech is not the way to go.

The laws create extraordinary powers for police to enter properties and carry out searches without a warrant—and without the requirement for a reasonable suspicion of an offence. These powers include frisk searches and strip searches under certain circumstances. The laws create a range of ill-defined new offences which will make it extremely difficult for people to know whether they are acting lawfully or not and these offences attract penalties ranging up to $11,000. A person who may disrupt any part of the G20 can be declared to be a prohibited person by the police commissioner and on that basis will be subject to eviction from security areas and to increased search powers. There is no obligation to inform those affected in a timely manner and they will have no opportunity to challenge this blacklisting. Evidence forming the basis of these designations will be kept secret.

These laws create a list of prohibited items which is extremely broad. It includes common protest items such as large banners and megaphones but it also strays into the ludicrous. Among the banned items are surfboards, cans of food, eggs and lizards. Under these laws if someone is arrested for a nonviolent offence involving disrupting the G20, a presumption against bail is created. That, of course, reverses the normal bail rules, something which is reserved only for the worst offences such as murder. These laws have been widely condemned by human rights lawyers, the Queensland civil liberties council and the Queensland Law Society.

The Canadian government imposed similar laws when Toronto hosted the G20 conference in 2010. During that conference over 1,100 people were arrested, of whom only 40 were ever convicted of an offence. Seven hundred and seventy-nine were released without charge. Over 30 police, including four senior officers, were recommended for disciplinary hearings. It was the largest mass arrest in Canadian peacetime history. The vague nature of the Queensland laws and the extraordinary powers conferred on police mean the risk of abuse and discrimination by police, especially against homeless people and young people, is acute. The G20 should be an opportunity to reaffirm and protect fundamental rights and freedoms, not to needlessly undermine them.

Of particular concern to the civil liberties council of Queensland are the restrictions imposed on the Cairns central business district during the September session of the conference. The rate of homelessness in Cairns is significantly higher than the average rate of homelessness in Queensland and these laws are particularly concerning for the welfare and wellbeing of homeless persons, who may be targeted as breaching the ill-defined disruption causes of the G20 laws. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up approximately 16 per cent of homeless people in Cairns, which is double the state average. It is deeply concerning that the Newman government would rather impose temporary laws to hide a gross injustice from the rest of the world than to actually find positive solutions for the situation of one of Queensland's most marginalised groups.

On this issue, the Queensland state Labor Party has shown a disheartening lack of backbone. Opposition police spokesman Bill Byrne MP has told the state parliament that the legislation should have gone further. He says:

I am somewhat surprised that some of the offence provisions have quite light sentences attached, and I consider the boundaries of the restricted and declared areas to be minimalist.

The legal changes I have described are deeply troubling but they come in the context and background of the way Premier Newman's government has trashed the independence of what was one of the best anticorruption bodies in Australia, the CCC—formerly the CMC. New legislation gives the Newman government total control over the appointment of the chair of the CCC, scrapping the system of bipartisan appointments. The government appointed chair now has extraordinary powers to veto or terminate any investigation, turning the CCC into a one-man band. The Attorney-General now has the power to veto any research project launched by the CCC. The legislation also criminalises complaint, with penalties for making a reckless complaint. This attack on the CCC comes after allegations that the government's hand-picked acting CMC chair misled the CMC's parliamentary oversight committee. When that committee began an investigation, the Premier and the Attorney-General sacked the whole committee and reconstituted it with a compliant government majority. Tony Fitzgerald, whose anticorruption inquiry brought down another conservative Queensland government all those years ago, has called Premier Newman and Attorney-General Bleijie 'inexperienced, arrogant fools' in response to this outrageous attack on one of Australia's finest corruption-fighting bodies. Mr Fitzgerald has said these changes are the final step needed to remove the commission's independence entirely and bring it under complete government control.

Undermining civil liberties is, in fact, the only thing the Queensland LNP government has shown any talent for whatsoever. Since coming to power, Campbell Newman's government has embarked on an unprecedented campaign to rip up fundamental rights including, but not limited to, free speech, freedom of association, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment and equality before the law. The now infamous VLAD law, or the Vicious Lawless Associations Disestablishment Act, is the perfect example. It has been sold as only applying to illegal motorcycle gangs but of course it does not; it does not mention motorcycles once. It applies to any gathering of three or more people who may be part of a formal or informal organisation whose purpose includes committing certain offences. The Queensland Law Society has warned these laws are so broad they could apply to virtually any type of club or association—swimming clubs, RSLs, school P&Cs or, indeed, a group of friends out for a stroll. The VLAD Act imposes truly enormous mandatory sentences—either 15 or 25 years without parole. As barrister and human rights advocate Stephen Keim SC has said:

The VLAD Act will not be wheeled out on every occasion it could be used. It will be used for the disadvantaged and unpopular.

This is precisely why civil liberties are important. Abuse always begins when the government finds a public scapegoat, but that scapegoat will not remain the primary target for long.

Brash law and order policies are a smokescreen for other attacks on the disadvantaged and the voiceless, including cuts to health and education, injured workers and the natural environment. It is our duty to call out this deception wherever we see it and to oppose these senseless attacks on civil liberties. The actions of Campbell Newman and the government are the actions of a bully. This is our chance to stand up to the bullies in the Queensland LNP government. This bill offers an opportunity for all parties to stand up to the creeping attacks on civil liberties by the Queensland LNP government, and I call on all parties to oppose it. Sadly, I note that it is very telling that both big parties are backing this bill.

On the G20, climate change clearly will be the biggest cost to our economy in the long term, but it is not on the agenda at the G20. Even though our allies have reached out and asked that climate change be discussed, Mr Tony Abbott's fingers remain firmly fixed in his ears. Prime Minister Abbott has the blinkers fixed tight over his eyes and seems to care nought for the effect on our environment or Australians jobs or economic security in the long term. We also see that fossil fuel subsidies, which have been previously discussed, are not on the agenda at the G20. I note with some amusement and horror that Australia has previously used its diplomatic weight to change the resolution on fossil fuel subsidies to be a ban on inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, of course then arguing that Australia's fossil fuel subsidies were somehow efficient and therefore exempt from that ban.

I want to also touch on gender equality. We saw this morning a report released by Oxfam calling for gender equality and participation to be on the agenda at the G20—putting gender on the agenda, if you like. The report out today shows that globally it would take about 75 years for women to achieve equal pay. The unpaid work that women do is subsidising the economy. Women do an average of two to five hours more unpaid work than do men, says this report this morning, and we know in Australia that we still have a gender pay gap of more than 17 per cent and that women still do more than 70 per cent of the unpaid caring work. But instead of these important issues being put on the G20 agenda, we see more silencing dissent from this government. They do not want to talk about those key issues at the G20 and they want to unnecessarily restrict the rights of not just protesters but also local residents during the G20. The Greens will stand up for civil liberties and freedom of association and we will oppose this draconian bill.

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

I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. I thank the Labor Party for its support for this legislation. I will reply briefly to some of the observations from Senator Wright and Senator Waters. There is an old saying that if you live long enough you will see everything. But I never thought I would serve in the Senate long enough to hear members of the Australian Greens represent themselves to be champions of freedom of speech, because on every single occasion that the government has sought to advance the cause of freedom of speech it has found no more trenchant opponents than the Australian Greens. Whether the issue be the right of a diversity of voices to be heard in the climate change debate, whether the issue be the right of a diversity of voices to be heard in the same-sex marriage debate, whether the issue be the reform of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act—whatever the issue, I have never before seen a Greens senator take the side of freedom.

Senator Wright, you quote from a journalist called Mr Sparrow, who said the test of whether you believe in freedom of expression is whether or not it extends beyond your comfort zone, or words to that effect. Well, Senator Wright—if I may say so through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—might I invite you to apply that test to yourself. The test of whether you believe in freedom of expression is not whether or not it is for views that you find congenial. It is for whether or not you would extend the same right to views that you find uncongenial.

I turn now more specifically to the provisions of the bill. When one heard the rather excitable rhetoric of Senator Wright and Senator Waters—words like 'despotism' and 'tyranny' and all of that rather heated and overexcited language—one would have thought that a new dark age was about to dawn as a result of this bill, the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014. It does help, if I may say so with respect, Senator Wright and Senator Waters, to read the bill first, because if you read the bill you would learn that the provisions of the bill extend to the precincts of the Brisbane airport—and only to the precincts of the Brisbane airport—for a brief few days during which the G20 is going to be held in the city of Brisbane. I am bound to say that I would not have thought that extending certain measures for a few brief days to the precincts of the Brisbane airport betokens or heralds the dawn of a new dark age in the state of Queensland.

But, of course, then the Greens senators say that the vice of this bill is not merely that it extends to the Brisbane airport but that it applies, and thereby implicitly endorses, the Queensland parliament's G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 and it is to that bill that one looks to find the real vice of the draconian provisions, these anti-freedom-of-speech provisions. What the Greens senators did not tell us is that the very basis of the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 of the Queensland parliament is a guarantee of freedom of speech and of lawful assembly That is to be found in section 18 of the act.

There is one restriction which is a novel restriction—that is, people who wish to exercise the right of freedom of speech and freedom of protest are asked to do so in declared areas. I would have thought that as a matter of common sense when the leaders of the 20 most important nations in the world are gathered within one metropolis together with their entourages and the press of the world, as a matter of ordinary and sensible people management, requesting those who wish to exercise their right of free speech by way of protest do so in declared areas of the city is not a particularly unreasonable restraint. It certainly does not betoken despotism or tyranny, Senator Wright.

There are, however, in section 18 of the Queensland act, in which this Commonwealth bill would extend to the precincts of the Brisbane Airport, these other restrictions on assemblies: 'The assembly must not disrupt the G20 meeting'—is it suggested that there ought to be a right to disrupt the G20 meeting?; 'The assembly will not be lawful if an offence is committed by those participating in the assembly'—is it suggested by the Greens senators that it is some burdensome imposition on people's rights that their assembly is declared unlawful if it is used as an occasion or a venue or a pretext for the commission of criminal offences? An assembly is also not lawful if a 'violent disruption' is occurred by those participating. An assembly is also not lawful if it involves damage or destruction to property.

Those are the restrictions that are said to be so draconian and despotic that in a city which—and I am a citizen of the City of Brisbane, I might tell, you Mr Acting Deputy President—will never have been so busy, with the leaders of the world, we ask people who want to exercise their freedom to protest and object to whatever they may wish to protest and object to confine themselves to certain designated areas. I am a person who does believe in freedom of speech. I do not just invoke the rhetoric of it, like Senator Wright and Senator Waters did. I do not think that is an unreasonable restraint for a few days. Beyond that, I do not think committing offences, committing crimes, disrupting meetings, destroying or damaging property or engaging in the violent disruption of civil activities in a city are any part of a legitimate right of protest—nor would, I think, most people regard that as a particularly legitimate form of protest.

The right of freedom of protest and freedom of expression that you invoke—although you never observe in your own political lives—will be protected by this bill, but the government merely asks that those who wish to exercise that right do so in declared areas. That is the Queensland parliament's bill.

As I said a moment ago, the Commonwealth bill will merely extend those provisions to the precincts of the Brisbane Airport. Let me make a few more general remarks, by way of summing up. This bill will contribute to effective security arrangements for the G20 summit to be held in Brisbane later this year. The Prime Minister has described the G20 summit as the most significant gathering of leaders our nation has ever hosted, and so it will be. Leaders representing two-thirds of the world's population, 75 per cent of global trade and 85 per cent of global GDP will meet in Brisbane, in November, to shape the global response to the economic challenges we currently face.

There was some criticism by Senator Wright and, in particular, by Senator Waters that there were certain items that were not prioritised on the G20 agenda. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you, sir, would know, at each G20 the host nation designates certain themes that are to be given particular emphasis. This year, the Abbott government has identified the economic challenges faced by the G20 nations as the topics to be given particular emphasis. I doubt many sensible people would argue that the prioritisation of economic issues, particularly in the world's present economic affairs, is not a very sensible choice. The summit is an opportunity for Australia to play a leadership role in the world's response to global economic challenges. The summit will also put Queensland and my own home city, Brisbane, on the global centre stage, joining the echelons of elite cities that have previously hosted this event, such as Seoul, London and Toronto.

It is a privilege for Australia and Queensland to host an event of this magnitude, but this privilege brings with it a responsibility. Effective security arrangements will be a necessary component of ensuring the success of this event. The Queensland government has acted the legislation, to which I referred a moment ago, to give police and other authorised persons powers to protect our high-profile guests and the public during this important event. That includes powers that will apply at Brisbane Airport, which is a Commonwealth place. This bill does not extend the application of the Queensland legislation or the powers it confers. The bill will simply confirm that the provisions in the Queensland legislation and those in the existing Commonwealth aviation legislation apply concurrently at Brisbane Airport. It will also provide that in the event of any overlap the provisions of the Queensland act prevail.

I am at pains to point out, as I reminded honourable senators a moment ago, those provisions of the Queensland act include the statutory guarantee, under section 18 of the Queensland act, of a right of peaceful, lawful assembly and protest. The provisions will avoid confusion about the source of powers a police officer or other authorised person is using in a particular situation. The bill will sunset shortly, after the Leaders Summit.

The government is proud to facilitate and support the package of the G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014. The bill is an important contribution by the Australian government to ensure that legislative ambiguity does not impair the ability of police and others to guarantee the security of this important event, and the bill, by adopting the guarantees of freedom of peaceful protest in the Queensland act, will also serve the very value which Greens senators, in their contributions, have espoused. I thank senators for those contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.