Trish Draper (Makin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House of developments in the continuing need for counter-terrorism legislation?

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

I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question, because there is continuing interest in the situation of national security. Last week I tabled a report on the Security Legislation Review Committee that was chaired by a retired judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Simon Sheller. The committee was established to review the operation, effectiveness and implication of the package of measures that were implemented in 2002. That report recognised that the current level of threat to Australia and Australian interests from terrorist activity justified the continuing need for our strong counter-terrorism laws. As the Age editorial today correctly points out, the report also found that there had been no excessive or improper use of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws.

Of course the government will consider very carefully the recommendations of the review, but we have formed a preliminary view on several key issues. It is appropriate that I should outline what those matters were, as I did last Friday. We believe very firmly that the listing of terrorist organisations is open and transparent as a process with sufficient safeguards and with parliamentary oversight. The power has been used on some 19 occasions, and I was satisfied at the time, and I remain satisfied, that each of the 19 organisations meet the criteria for listing. Based on advice from our intelligence organisations, each of them is assessed to have engaged in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering a terrorist act. I might say it has nothing to do with any religious faith or cause which members or adherents might have.

The government believes concern expressed by the committee about the offensive association is also unfounded. The idea that it interferes with ordinary family, religious or legal communication ignores the fact that provisions in the law now explicitly exempt associations with close family members and associations for the purpose of religious worship and for the provision of humanitarian advice and legal advice. The government does remain committed to engaging with the community on security issues explaining the legislation to all members of the community. We will continue to denounce terrorism and all those who support it or promote it directly or by association.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.