Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

A third concern is the way this bill seeks to move power from the judiciary to the executive. It does that in two fairly obvious ways. One is the fact that certain punitive measures would be taken by the minister or someone appointed by the minister. This idea that we could remove someone's entitlement to Centrelink not because they have been found to have committed an offence but because the minister or someone appointed by the minister decides someone is not worthy of receiving Centrelink benefits is just as much a punitive measure as putting someone in jail. But why on earth would you allow a punitive measure to be taken out of the hands of the judiciary and given to a minister or someone that minister appoints? It is patently unjust, unfair and should not be supported.

And the fact that, if this bill becomes law, it then will be an offence to be suspected of something, that alone removes the burden of proof that is required to find that someone is guilty of that offence. Again, it is taking power away from the judiciary, because how is the judiciary going to disagree with the authorities when all they have to do is say, 'We suspect someone'? There will be next to no burden of proof to prove that they are suspected of something. Again, it is taking the power away from the judiciary.

Also, what is this overturning of the whole presumption of guilt and innocence? Up until now, our justice system has been based, quite rightly, on a presumption of innocence. But this bill—as quite ably described by my colleague the member for Melbourne—rests on a presumption of guilt. It is up to the person that is accused to prove that they have not done something that they are suspected of doing. This is just turning our whole justice system on its head. It is crazy.

And why are we going to have these laws, anyway? The fact is, it is already a serious criminal offence to go over and to fight in a foreign war. It is already a very serious criminal offence to kill someone. It is already a serious criminal offence in Australia, because of reforms over the last decade or so, to be found to be intending to commit an act of terror. So, the case has simply not been made that we need new and additional laws and even stronger punitive measures. That is what makes me think that the government is not only overreaching, but is seeking to exploit the current security environment. And that is a terrible breach of trust, because governments must always be measured. Governments must only ever diminish the rights and the freedoms of the members of the community when there is the most compelling case to make. But at times like this, where no case has been made at all that there is a need for new, stronger laws, we find these laws coming into the parliament. This is a breach of faith with the Australian community. The government is overreaching. It is trying to exploit the security situation, and it is failing to keep the security agencies on a short leash. Because, clearly, the government has gone to the security agencies and said, 'What do you want?' And the security agencies have said, 'We want a list this long.' And the government has said, 'Not a problem, you can have the lot. We will tinker with them a little through the security community and make a few amendments, but, basically, come to us with your wish list and you can have the lot.' That is wrong, because, of course the security agencies will want the world. It is up to politicians to keep them on a short leash and to give them only what they genuinely need.

This bill is clearly unsatisfactory, and I will not support it. Part of the issue is the problems with the bill, but I am just about equally alarmed by the behaviour of the Labor Party and the opposition here. This is the second security bill in a row, in a couple of sitting weeks, where the opposition is just rolling over. Now, what on earth is the role of an opposition? Surely, it is to cast a critical eye over everything the government of the day wants to do, to point out the problems in it in the most effective way, and to oppose anything the government wants to do when the government's intentions are clearly unsatisfactory. But quite frankly, when it comes to security, the Labor Party is gutless. The Labor Party is scared stiff of being seen to be weak on national security. It is so scared stiff, when the government says 'jump' the opposition asks 'how high?'

A government member: They are being responsible.

They are not at all being responsible. A responsible opposition takes the fight up to the government and highlights problems when there are problems to be seen and to be dealt with. I think this is a case where the Labor Party is letting the Australian community down terribly, and it has been left again to the crossbench to be the opposition in this place. This is what happened a couple of weeks ago with the first security reform bill. It was left to the member for Indi, the member for Melbourne and me to oppose it and to be the opposition in this place.

I call on the Labor Party to act like an opposition. Be prepared to fight the good fight. Be prepared to make the case in the court of public opinion when a case needs to be made. Because I tell you what: in my own electorate, I have lost count of the number of people who used to call themselves Labor supporters, who are sick and tired of the Labor Party not standing for anything anymore. I have got a lot of time for the Labor Party, and the Labor Party has a proud history and has done a lot of good things for this country. But the way it is rolling over at the moment, I think, is downright appalling. No wonder the Labor Party has so much difficulty with so many of its supporters.

We do live in dangerous times. There does need to be a constant watch kept on our security agencies and on our security legislation, but dangerous times should not—must not—give a government license to do whatever it wants and to bring in the sort of security reforms that we have seen in this place coming through in this bill today, and a few weeks ago with its first tranche of legislation. There is no doubt that the government is exploiting the heightened security environment, and is taking the opportunity, quite cynically, to do whatever it wants. That is not good enough. This is a time for a government to show leadership. It is not a time for a government to exploit opportunities. It is not a time for a government to overreach in the way it is doing now. I will not support this bill. I will support the amendments by the member for Melbourne, and I wait, like the rest of Australia, to see whether the government is going to go ahead with this madness of mandatory data retention in its third tranche of reform—perhaps today or perhaps in the next sitting week. But I tell you what: the government, with the way it is going with these reforms, is completely and utterly out of step at the moment with majority public opinion. The case has not been made that we need these reforms. I make the point again: it is already a serious criminal offence to go and fight in a war in another country. It is already a serious criminal offence to plan an act of terror. It is already a serious criminal offence to kill someone. The case has not been made for the need for the sort of reforms that are likely to go through this House today, particularly with the spineless behaviour of the Labor Party.

I make the point again that I am concerned about the lowering of the threshold; the disproportionate way punishment is going to be applied; the way power is being shifted from the judiciary to the executive; the way the presumption of innocence has been turned on its head and now we live with a justice system based on a presumption of guilt; and the fact that we are going ahead with a whole raft of laws which are not needed—laws which seek to deal with problems that either can be dealt with through existing laws or problems that do not exist. I lament the fact that it is left to the crossbench to be the opposition in this place. Hopefully the Labor Party will find its voice again on these sorts of matters in the future. I see the shadow Attorney-General sitting there. Hopefully Labor will at least find its voice and its strength when it comes to the mandatory data retention reforms that will come into this place very, very soon. I can but hope.

See this speech in context