Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The counter-terrorism bill that seems likely to pass today will be very different to the version tabled a few weeks ago. That is because of the work that Labor has done. Labor is a very different party with very different values to the Liberals and The Nationals. The type of leadership and the type of government that you get from the coalition will always be very different to the way that Labor governs and leads. Labor leads through a commitment to social cohesion where everyone feels welcome. We promote inclusiveness, not fear. We promote fellow feeling, not division.

For an example of the differences between our parties and our approaches look no further than this government's corrosive and unnecessary attempt earlier this year to weaken hate speech laws. I am so pleased that those attempts were abandoned after a strong community backlash. So we will stand up against the Liberal and National policies that we believe harm our nation and its people. The fact is, though, that we are in opposition. I do not like that fact. I would prefer that the nation had a Labor government, because the fact is when you have a coalition government, when you have a Liberal-led government, you get Liberal policies. The only way to get a fair, outward-looking, inclusive government and leadership in this country is to vote Labor.

Having said that, we will not sideline ourselves in opposition. We will not relegate ourselves to being a party of protest. So we have acted on our concerns about this bill as originally tabled and we have fought hard to make this bill better. It is still a Liberal bill but it is better. This bill, as originally tabled, contained provisions about which any reasonable observer would have had misgivings. Australia's security laws, for example, contain some provisions that are intrusive and coercive which are presently due to stop operating in 2015 and 2016. Those laws include preventative detention orders, questioning and detention warrants, and control orders. The government originally wanted to extend those coercive powers indefinitely. Then they wanted, in the original draft of this bill, to extend those laws by 10 years. So even when they compromised it was to extend them for 10 years. Labor demanded change and we got it. The sunset provisions will now be much shorter. We have also secured through our work and our advocacy safeguards in relation to the operation of preventative detention orders.

The bill limits free speech. It provides for a new offence of advocating terrorism. The offence as drafted is broad. It seems to leave a grey area that the courts will have to interpret. Labor has fought for and secured amendments to the explanatory memorandum to deal with this problem. Labor has also fought for and won greater parliamentary oversight of the counter-terrorism activities of the Australian Federal Police. We have fought for and won a change to remove the vague and uncertain new concept 'subverting society'.

One of the most controversial aspects of this Liberal legislation is to criminalise the act of travel in and of itself to declared areas. Under the bill as originally drafted, whole countries could have been declared no-go zones. Like others, I am concerned that if you criminalise travel to a country or an area then you are encouraging suspicion and division when it comes to people connected with that area.

I have spoken before about division, about people who call Australia home being treated terribly because they wear a headscarf, about women who do not feel safe, about the woman whose arm was broken, about the man who threatened to set a woman's headscarf on fire in my electorate. We must be very careful not just of the operation of these laws but of the perception they promote and the messages these new Liberal laws send.

Labor has fought back on the declared travel provisions. We have won a change that means whole countries will not be able to be declared no-go zones. We have introduced greater and stronger oversight. We have got an expiry date for the no-go laws. And we have nipped in the bud the idea that somehow Customs just by making a regulation could start taking fingerprints and retina scans at airports. The Australian people would not have known of the government's intention to start collecting this data if it were not for Labor's work.

We have had a lot of other wins—36 recommendations in total—if you read the PCJIS report. I congratulate Labor's leadership on their work and their achievements and I say that I will always, in this challenging debate, which is challenging for all of us as lawmakers, bear the responsibility that this debate imposes as a leader on our community, reflect on and critically analyse national security laws and be a voice for social cohesion at every opportunity in our community.

See this speech in context