Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

These laws from Minister Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, would have a chilling effect on journalists breaking politically significant stories, on grassroots community activists and on brave whistleblowers who speak out and protect the public's right to know what their government is doing. These laws could see these brave people jailed for up to five years—for example, if they're a journalist and they refuse to reveal their sources. It's no wonder that barristers who have had a close look at this have said that this will have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to speak to journalists about issues of political significance and a decrease in media coverage and reporting on those matters, thereby inhibiting public debate.

The powers that Labor and Liberal are about to give the Attorney-General unfettered, in this bill, will be so far-reaching that they can be used to clamp down on civil society organisations and political advocacy groups, including environment, human rights and refugee groups. In this bill, this law and these powers would make Australia a world leader in state sanctioned tracking of citizens and coercive questioning powers, going further than any other Five Eyes country. Labor and Liberal are about to vote for it. This always happens at the end of the year: Labor and Liberal put a lump of coal in the parliamentary Christmas stocking. There is always a bill that gets rushed through at the end of the year that takes away people's rights.

People should be very concerned about this legislation because, to the extent that bits of this legislation may be half a step and shuffle forward because they remove some powers, it takes four, five, six or seven steps back. I say to the opposition that it is not enough to say, 'We will give the government unfettered powers that make Australia a world leader in being able to examine, question, search and seize things from citizens in the hope that maybe one day we'll take them back later.' If these powers are so bad, which they are, let's not give them to the minister in the first place. It's critical that people understand a bit about the detail of what is happening here and why this last minute piece of legislation that is being rushed through should send a shiver down the spine of people who think that Australia is a place where you have the right, provided that you're not breaking the law, to go about your business freely without government ministers—not even security agencies, but ministers—being able to search and seize you and your property, because that's what this legislation will do. We've got to understand it.

There will be a thing called a questioning warrant in this bill, which will now be broadly available. You haven't been convicted of anything, but someone has a suspicion—and I'll come to who that someone is—that you might have done something wrong. They'll be able to bring you in, detain you, hold you for questioning and, under this bill, a police officer will be able to conduct a search, if you've been apprehended, and seize your items.

At the moment, if someone wants to issue a warrant to exercise those kinds of broad powers, which are going to be expanded under this bill, you have to go to a judge. Labor and Liberal are about to vote and support this bill to give that unfettered power to the Attorney-General and a minister to be able to call you in and authorise for you to be searched and your property seized.

I've heard all of the things that the opposition and others say about how this minister and this Attorney-General conduct their affairs, how in many instances they're not fit to hold their jobs and how they turn a blind eye to civil rights. However, as the rest of the country knows you wouldn't trust this government to protect your privacy and your liberty, we are nonetheless, on the eve of parliament rising, about to give the Attorney-General and the minister—not a law enforcement agency, not a judge overseeing it—the power to pull you in for questioning and authorise search and seizure. That should not happen. It certainly should not happen when the only inquiry into it has been at a closed-shop committee where Labor and Liberal get together and say, 'It's okay. We're quite happy to hand over that power to the state that makes Australia a world leader in this kind of state-sanctioned tracking of citizens and coercive questioning powers.'

I'm pleased that the opposition's going to move an amendment at least to require a judge or some other issuing authority to oversee these warrants, but if that amendment fails we should all vote against the bill. Otherwise, if we don't vote against this today—and I'm not surprised that certain members don't want to hear this debate, because I suspect in other instances they'd have railed against these kinds of powers being given to the Attorney-General—and try and stop it, then we are saying, Labor and Liberal are saying, they don't mind if the Attorney-General now has unfettered powers in a way that you would struggle to find even in other Five Eyes countries to pull someone in for questioning, and search and seize their property.

There will also be warrants available to be issued with respect to 14-year-olds. We are going to see a lowering of the age for whom this could be targeted. That would be a breach of our international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is disappointing, as we head towards the end of the year, that Labor and Liberal are in lock step in giving more power to the Attorney-General and the minister. No case has been made that this is going to make Australia safer. It's just going to give a minister unaccountably more powers. We have seen during the course of this year that, when the parliament chooses to stand up to the government, we can sometimes bring about change. The government doesn't always have to get their way. But they will get their way if Labor's willing to waive everything through.

I would hope that the opposition reconsiders this power grab by a government that is going to take away people's liberty, even when they haven't been convicted of doing anything wrong. You're not going to need to satisfy a court anymore that there's a suspicion; you just need a minister to have a suspicion, unchallengeable, with respect to a very broad range of activities that is going to encompass journalists, community activists and whistleblowers. If this law passes, all of a sudden the minister is going to have power to interfere in their lives. Anyone who cares about the rule of law and individual liberty should be very worried about this bill. Of course, standing up for national security is important, but we have to make sure that in protecting Australia we don't take away the things that define us as what we are in the first place. One of those things, I would have thought, is that, if you want to stand up, speak out and blow the whistle on something that is happening by a government or if you want be a community activist and organise a demonstration against the government, you should be able to do that without worrying that the minister is going to have unfettered power to call you in for questioning, keep you separate from the rest of the world, seize your property and search your home. That's the power that Labor and Liberal are about give to the current Attorney-General. I want you to think about that.

The current ministers are not fit to be exercising the powers that they have. The opposition have said that, and yet the opposition are about to hand this power over to them. I heard from the opposition spokesperson that they're going to give this power to the Attorney-General and the government on the hope that they use it well. That is going to be of great comfort to the person who finds themselves called in for questioning, detained, their property searched and seized even though they haven't done anything wrong! Perhaps they've just blown the whistle. Perhaps all they've done is organised a rally and been a community activist. Perhaps they're a journalist. Well, that hope counts for nothing. We shouldn't be giving powers to a government, to an unaccountable minister and then just hope that they do the right thing. If we want them to do the right thing let's put it into law. If we're not guaranteed that the minister will do the right thing—and looking at these ministers there are plenty of reasons to think they won't do the right thing—let's not give them the power in the first place. That's what we should do.

I expect this from the government—you expect this from the government: every year they encroach further and further on individuals' liberty and erode the rule of law more and more. I plead with the opposition to reconsider handing these powers over to the government. You hope one day, maybe, you'll get into power and you might be able to repeal it—although maybe not. Maybe there'll be a different person sitting in the chair at that stage who has a different approach to it, or maybe the party will change its position. Instead of hoping on a wing and a prayer that maybe one day you'll take away the power, let's not give it to them in the first place. This government does not deserve the right to track citizens who haven't done anything wrong more than they do at the moment. They have not earned that trust. We should not give them powers that are not going to be overseen by a judge, that would make Australia a world leader in state surveillance of its citizens.

This bill should be opposed. The amendment is one that will be supported because it takes out a bad bit, but, if the amendment fails, we should vote against the bill. I urge the opposition consider voting against the bill if the amendment fails. Otherwise it will be them who hands over to the government powers to do things that in other countries you can't do. When the minister does it—when the minister has you hauled in and has your house searched—you're not going to have any recourse, and that will be a dark day for Australia's democracy, for the rule of law and for individual liberties.

See this speech in context