Senator Brian Greig
Portfolio: Attorney General & Justice
Related: Defence
Related: Foreign Affairs
| Dated: 15 May 2003
Location: Parliament House - Canberra
|
Senator Brian Greig speaks to the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002: second reading |
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (TERRORISM) BILL 2002: Second Reading
Senator GREIG (Western Australia) (12.46 p.m.) —I rise to again record the Australian Democrats opposition to the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002. The bill re-enacts the various terrorism offences introduced last year as part of the government's package and suite of antiterrorism legislation. The purpose of this re-enactment is to provide for the referral of state powers to the Commonwealth to deal with these offences. In the absence of such a referral, this legislation would rely on a mixed bag of Commonwealth powers, and there is some concern that potential loopholes in these powers may prevent the Commonwealth from responding to a terrorist attack in some circumstances. For this reason, the summit of Commonwealth, state and territory leaders, convened on 5 April 2002, agreed to work towards a national referral of state powers on specific antiterrorism legislation. The majority of Australian states have now passed legislation to bring this referral into effect. If any state does not enact referral legislation, the Commonwealth will continue to rely on its constitutional heads of power when acting within that state. In the territories, the Commonwealth will rely on the territories power in section 122 of the Constitution and outside of Australia it will rely on its external affairs power.
We Democrats note that the states have referred to the Commonwealth both the text of this legislation and the power to amend it. We are pleased to see that such amendments can be made only with the agreement of a majority of states and territories, including at least four of the states. We Democrats also note that the bill will enable the concurrent operation of state laws relating to terrorist offences provided there is no direct inconsistency. We welcome the provision which prevents a situation of double jeopardy arising under these arrangements.
The Democrats opposed the introduction of the terrorism offences when this chamber considered the package of antiterrorism legislation last year. The original suite of bills was draconian in the extreme and represented, I believe, an ambit claim on the part of the government. The bills were, of course, substantially amended during their passage through this chamber and, as a result, radical improvements were made. However, even after these improvements, the Democrats were unable to support the bills. Our fundamental concern was related to the definition of a terrorist act and the Attorney-General's proscription power. The Democrats believe that the definition of a terrorist act was too broad and could potentially capture forms of political activism that were far removed from terrorism despite the exemption for lawful advocacy.
With respect to the proscription power, the Democrats argued strongly that criminal behaviour should be punished but belief or association should not. We took the view that a more appropriate way to deal with this issue would be through prosecuting on the basis of conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. We Democrats did, however, welcome the new requirement for the organisation to be identified by the Security Council in a decision relating to terrorism. The requirement placed some limitation on what would otherwise have been an arbitrary and a potentially very dangerous power.
We take the opportunity this time to record our deep concern at the Attorney-General's recent announcement in the media that he intends to seek amendments to the Criminal Code which would remove this requirement, effectively reverting to the government's original model. This announcement confirmed the Democrats' concerns that once these new powers were introduced the government could potentially increase their scope. This was a possibility that greatly influenced our decision to oppose the original bills. Time and time again the government has sought to assure us that it will exercise these powers responsibly and will not abuse them or misapply them. Here we are a year later and the government is already signalling its intention to shed some of the safeguards that secured the passage of this legislation in the first place. I want to put clearly on the record now that, if legislation is introduced to remove the requirement for a Security Council listing in relation to terrorist organisations, we Democrats will oppose it.
On the issue of the referral of state powers, Democrats in state parliaments have voted against referral legislation. The reason for this opposition is best summarised by my South Australian colleague the Hon. Ian Gilfillan, who said:
In addressing the bill we must answer two questions: first, is the issue of fighting terrorism properly dealt with at a national level; and, secondly, do we have confidence in the commonwealth to deal appropriately with the challenges that terrorism presents? The first question is easily dealt with. Terrorism as we face it today is an international issue and, hence, the commonwealth is the most appropriate body to address the matter. The second question is more problematic. It is difficult, when the measures that are employed in an attempt to combat terrorism erode those values of our society that we are trying to defend against terrorists.
Having considered the substance of the Commonwealth legislation, he then lacked the confidence in the Commonwealth to deal with the threat of terrorism appropriately. Right from the beginning we Democrats have opposed the offences contained in this bill. We believe that they represent a fundamentally flawed and disproportionate response to the threat of terrorism. We have voted against them at a federal level and we have voted against them at a state level. Again today we express our opposition to these measures.
|
|
