Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. All of those examples have involved additional acts. That is the only point I make. Interestingly, I found recently a quote by somebody whom the member for Gellibrand would probably want to eulogise, and that is the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton. At the University of Berkeley, when he spoke at Zellerbach Hall, he said: ‘I’ve spent 30 years sleep deprived and I’ve got used to it.’ The only point that I am making is that sleep deprivation per se, without further steps, is not necessarily torture. I was speaking about these issues in a context in which I made it clear that torture was specifically outlawed under the military commission process. Even further, if it were coercive, it would have to be judged in terms of its probative value.

There were some other issues on which I have been verballed today by the member for Gellibrand. Let me make this point: I support freedom of speech. But, like every human right, it is not absolute. I have talked about these matters before. Some people assert particular human rights as if they are more absolute than others. The fact is, in dealing with terrorism, governments have a responsibility to protect people’s rights to life, safety and security. But that may mean that you have to put some limit on people’s freedom of movement or on what they might say. In the sedition laws we certainly did put limits upon those who were going to incite others to carry out acts of violence.

In relation to these matters, it is very interesting—particularly when I get into the question of classification powers, about what may be published or not published—to find that there are those who are quick to say that the Attorney is involved in restricting people’s freedom of speech and burning books if I act against books which might encourage people to carry out terrorist acts. But I tell you that it surprises me quite frequently how many people come forward and say that if a book is encouraging people to break another law—say, the one about graffiti—then we ought to have much more vigilant provisions to deal with that. Recently, I found that they make the same point about the conduct of people in relation to schools. I am sorry that this debate, which is a very important debate, has been demeaned by the way in which the question was argued. (Time expired)

See this speech in context