Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked today by Senator McKim relating to control orders.

I asked Senator Brandis repeatedly whether he could provide evidence that might exist where extending the application of control orders to children as young as 14 in Australia would make Australians safer or make Australia a safer place

Unfortunately, the Attorney-General was manifestly unable to offer any evidence whatsoever to support these proposed changes. In fact, he tried to link the proposals that he dropped in a media release on Monday evening to the tragic recent shooting of Curtis Cheng in Parramatta. It is my understanding, based on reports, that there is no evidence that the perpetrator of that shooting was known to authorities.

It is instructive that, when the Prime Minister was asked at a media event yesterday about these proposed changes, he did not go anywhere near the shooting in Parramatta. He did not use it as a rationale. In fact, he was at pains to say that these proposed changes had been discussed through the COAG process for many months.

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

They were. I said that, too.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I acknowledge that Senator Brandis mentioned that almost in passing in his answer.

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

No. That was the direct answer to your question.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But the point here is, Mr Acting Deputy President, that these changes further—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is Mr Deputy President. Don't demote him!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy President. I do apologise. The point is that these changes do erode fundamental civil and human rights in Australia. Australians have fought and died to protect and enhance these fundamental rights over many generations in this country. If we are going to keep eroding them—and the Greens do not support the continued erosion of these rights—at least have the common decency to make the case to the Australian people. Do not try to erode these rights without any evidence whatsoever that they will make Australia a safer place.

I believe that these proposed changes will, in effect, turn Australia's so-called anti-terror laws into a more draconian suite of laws than currently exist in any other liberal democracy in the world. Senators need to ask themselves the question of whether they believe the level of risk in this country is so high as to justify Australia having the most draconian so-called anti-terror legislation in the world. I do not think the facts back up the changes that the government is proposing. And I do not believe the government has put any evidence before the Australian people that would back up the continued further erosion of fundamental civil and human rights in this country.

The Greens will stand up for these rights. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate a need for change in this area, we will not be supporting the reforms. That is because we understand that, when you provide governments and authorities with extra powers, there is, unfortunately, an increase in the likelihood that those powers will be abused. We see, time after time, authorities abusing power—not just in Australia but right around the world. We have seen corruption and other power abuses over a long period of time in this country. It is the job of this parliament to be the guardian of civil and human rights in this country by ensuring that we have strong laws that protect those rights, but also that we do not allow those rights to be eroded unless there is demonstrated need. The government has manifestly failed to make the case for change in this context.

Question agreed to.