Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (1.40 p.m.) —The opposition supports the motion on the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist Organisations) Bill 2003. Contrary to the Attorney-General's point of view—and we believe it is not a matter to play politics with—these safeguards are of significance. They are certainly safeguards that did not exist under the parliamentary proscription model that applied in respect of the organisations such as Hezbollah and Lashkar-e-Taiba, where the parliament potentially proscribed those organisations without any mechanism for review or consideration of the primary material.
The obligation of consultation with the Leader of the Opposition on the specific question of proscription is significant. It is far more direct than the more broad provision of section 21 of the ASIO Act. As part of the agreement between the opposition and the government there is also the confirmation that the government will consult with all state and territory leaders. That is vitally important. The fight against terrorism is one that is a national fight. Indeed it is probably the case that the constitutional underpinning for this legislation requires reference of power from those states. That is significant.
The review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD is significant. That committee has a long and distinguished service to this parliament and indeed has specific powers of review. We have seen their work more recently in the inquiry in respect of weapons of mass destruction prior to the decision being made to send Australian troops into Iraq. Clearly their expertise and powers have been respected by the parliament. It is disingenuous of the Attorney-General not to recognise that it will be of significant benefit to members and senators to have this expert advice before being required to make a decision as to whether or not a listing decision is disallowed. Without the benefit of the expert advice from the committee, members and senators are required to act on mere hearsay—what their respective party leaders, minister or shadow minister advise them is appropriate. That is significant and should not be overlooked.
The ability to correct a misnamed organisation is a provision which is contained in foreign legislation. Appropriately, we believe it should also be specifically provided for in Australia. We note that these safeguards will be included in what we concede is a very significant safeguard already contained in the existing legislation—that is, the ability for individuals to have access to judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia under the ADJR Act, which we acknowledge was in the existing provision.
There are many in the community who have genuine concerns about proscription. Indeed, I have with me an article published in the Quadrant in August 1994 written by the current Prime Minister, who was then simply the member for Bennelong, in which he said:
The Liberal Party's civil liberties record is not without blemish. It disobeyed Voltaire's famous injunction when it attempted to legally proscribe the Communist Party in the early 1950s.
The famous injunction that I understand the then member for Bennelong—and the current member for Bennelong—was referring to was the issue of the separation of powers and that, if penalties are being imposed, it is dangerous for there not to be the checks and balances of the respective arms of government: the parliament, the executive and the judicial branch. Indeed, if you look at the concerns expressed by the High Court of Australia in the early 1950s in considering the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, you see very real concerns by very distinguished judges—I might say, on the whole, quite conservative judges—as to the potential dangers of the misuse of executive powers. (Extension of time granted) The High Court, even at the height of the Cold War and in the context of the Korean War, expressed these concerns about the potential for misuse of executive power. That is why the Labor Party has been so determined to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place. We think, despite belittling the measures, the safeguards are significant: consultation with the Leader of the Opposition mandated; consultation with the state leaders and territory leaders mandated. Review by an expert committee of the parliament, with parliament having ultimate say on an informed basis to disallow these provisions, gives parliament ultimate control over this proscription regime. We think those safeguards are significant and, of course, were instrumental in the opposition agreeing to this legislation passing expeditiously through the parliament this week.
We do recognise that the regime of proscription that we are talking about is not the same regime as was contemplated by the High Court of Australia in the 1950s. There we were talking about proscribing a domestic political organisation. What we are talking about in terms of the proscription included in these powers is proscription that is, if you like, at the behest of resolutions of the United Nations requiring all signatories to cut off both the funding base and the resource base—the personnel base, the training base and so forth—of terrorist organisations.
The reality is that terrorism today is international. It requires an international effort, and those in the community who will continue to be concerned about the issue of proscription should be alive to the fact that it was a decision of the United Nations that called upon signatories to so proscribe or, at least, outlaw terrorist organisations. Powers equivalent to those that this parliament is passing exist in New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Great Britain. Obviously, in formulating propositions that we have put to the government in negotiations, we have had regard to safeguards that exist in those countries. We believe that the combination of the measures that will now be included in the bill—those safeguards again are consultation, review, disallowance and access to judicial review—give this proscription regime greater safeguards than exist in any comparable jurisdiction in the world.
Again, we say that national security is too important to play politics with. We have explained the reasons why we have been concerned and determined to ensure that safeguards are in place. In fairness to the Attorney-General, those negotiations have been held in good faith. We are satisfied that the safeguards are now such that the parliament can pass this proscription regime.