Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

There are a few different matters raised in amendments (17) to (20). Among them is the real effect of what we are trying to discuss. Hopefully, we will move the debate forward somewhat. Given the seriousness of the offences that you can be accused of if you are indeed seen to be counselling or urging a terrorist act, we are simply seeking to narrow the range of factors that could be considered to be advocating terrorism. I just wonder, Minister, whether you would be able to give us some examples and put on record for us the factors that the minister will have regard to when deciding to proscribe a terrorist organisation. I think the government and the opposition are also seeking to jointly oppose the proposition that there be some means of appeal once you find yourself on this list for a period of three years—during which you, your family, everyone you associate with, everybody you make a telephone call to or everybody who calls you can be subject to an extremely severe range of not only penalties but also quite serious surveillance. I just wonder whether you could give some examples of exactly what factors the minister will have regard to when deciding to proscribe a terrorist organisation, if the matters that I have raised here are not deemed to be sufficient or appropriate.