Address to AGM of the United Nations Association of Australia

Speech

Transcript - Melbourne - 10 September 2002

Check Against Delivery

I want to thank the United Nations Association of Australia for the invitation to speak at your AGM this evening. You have asked me to speak about the Labor Party's approach to the Government's anti-terrorism legislation and I am very happy to do so.

The Labor Party is proud that one our former leaders, Doc Evatt, was heavily involved in the founding of the UN at its 1945 San Francisco conference. We are also proud that when former Liberal Party Prime Minister Menzies sought to ban the Communist Party, Evatt successfully fought the case in court and campaigned relentlessly and successfully against Menzies' referendum.

Despite the personal cost and the political cost, Evatt was not prepared to surrender Australia's civil liberties any more than he or anyone else in Curtin's cabinet was prepared to surrender Australia's territory during the second world war and any more than anyone in the Labor Party is prepared to surrender Australians' rights and freedoms today.

The issue of protecting our rights and freedoms is squarely before us in considering the Government's package of anti-terrorism legislation. This legislation was designed to deal with the threat of terrorism, a threat brought home by the events of September 11 last year.

I am aware – in fact you'd have to living under a rock not be aware of the significance of tomorrow's anniversary.

We've heard the cliché that the world changed on September 11 many many times. Our perception of the threat of terrorism did change. It came a lot closer and became a lot more real.

Governments have long been aware of the very real possibility that terrorists might acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. The proliferation of technology relating to chemical, biological and radiological weapons has transformed the global security environment.

But for sheer good fortune, the 1995 sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway could have killed tens of thousands of people. That was more than seven years ago and the danger that terrorists might seek to kill thousands of people has been with us for over 20 years.

We must not forget the attacks on the World Trade Centre were an act of mass destruction, perpetrated without resort to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

On September 11, the scale of international terrorism did change. What had previously been considered only in the realm of possibility and conjecture became a reality. And the consequence is that Australia has had to urgently recalibrate its domestic security laws and capability.

While it is clear that we are fighting against terrorists and terrorism, we must also be clear as to what we are fighting for.

Terrorism does threaten our values. But in responding to such a threat we must ensure we do not overreact and, in so doing, threaten values ourselves.

Our response must be strong, effective and consistent with our democratic values and freedoms. This has been Labor's perspective as we have assessed the Government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation from the outset.

We are guided by the desire to protect citizens from terrorist attacks, and to protect our rights from the attacks of the Howard Government.

And I'm pleased to say, I believe that we have been successful in both of these aims with the outcome of the Parliamentary consideration of the first package of five Terrorism Bills in late June. The primary function of those Bills was to establish the framework of the new terrorism offences.

We intend to continue to balance the protection of citizens from terrorist attack, and protection of citizens' rights and freedoms, as we tackle the next Bill on the Howard Government's agenda - which deals with the investigation of terrorism offences and the powers of ASIO.

The Terrorism Package

The package of 5 anti-terrorism Bills was the Government's first legislative response to September 11 - though let's be clear about this timing – it took the Howard Government 6 months to introduce anything at all, and another 3 months to get agreement from their backbench.

In contrast, Labor always knew what we wanted from these Bills, and how we wanted to deal with the important factors involved. Labor continues to stress the importance of effective international action and co-operation, and beefing up security measures in aircraft and airports.

We have been crystal clear that Australia needs to play its part as a good international citizen to combat international terrorism.

By contrast, the Howard government have been extremely tardy in signing and ratifying the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, and we have criticised the government often for that.

Two of the anti-terrorism bills gave domestic legislative effect to our obligations under those two important UN conventions.

Australia also supported UN resolution 1373, which was passed on 28 September last year. That resolution requires UN member states to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts, to criminalise the wilful provision or collection of terrorist funds by their nationals and to freeze the assets of those connected with terrorism.

It also asks member states to take necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts and to ensure that terrorists and their accomplices and supporters are brought to justice, that terrorist acts are established in domestic laws as serious offences and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such acts.

The package of legislation passed by the Parliament gives effect to our obligations, as expressed in that UN Security Council resolution and in those two UN conventions.

As I said earlier, the primary function of the package of five bills was to establish the framework of the new terrorism offences.

Pressure from Labor and the Australian public forced very significant changes to this legislation, which will ensure that humanitarian groups will not be affected by the new treason offences, and that the definition of `terrorist act' contains the necessary higher level of intent associated with terrorism and will target only terrorists.

The original definition did not distinguish terrorist violence from offences or forms of violence covered in other acts. The Labor Party successfully argued that the definition had to be improved by making sure it had the neccesary intent element that is associated with terrorist violence.

To be worthwhile at all, it had to capture the element of trying to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Without that element, there would be little to distinguish terrorist violence from offences or forms of violence covered in other Acts.

We ensured that any possibility at all that protest or industrial action could be dealt with as terrorist offences has been removed.

We also ensured that the offences in the legislation target only terrorist activities and require the prosecution to prove knowledge of and intent to commit a terrorist act.

We have been able to ensure that there will be an independent, public review of all these anti-terrorism laws in three years time.

Most importantly, we have ensured that the proposal to give the Attorney-General the power to ban organisations never sees the light of day.

Mr Howard and Mr Williams's original package of bills was a shocker; but, from March to June this year, the Labor Party and many people in the community worked very hard to ensure we had tough but appropriate laws setting out terrorism offences.

We believe that we have been able to achieve that and through our efforts ensure Australia has laws consistent with our UN obligations.

ASIO Bill

Ladies & gentlemen, let me now turn to the ASIO Bill.

The Howard government has again been tardy in addressing the issues covered by the ASIO Bill – while the Bill was introduced into the Parliament six months ago there has been no progress on debating the Bill.

I suspect this has been because the Attorney-General has had such difficulty getting Liberal Party backbench agreement to the Bill, and because the government knows that the Labor Party retains major concerns with important provisions of the Bill.

Now, a full year after 11 September 2001, the Howard Government has lost the credibility argument that these proposed new powers for ASIO are urgently required to deal with any terrorist threat.

Twelve months on, and the Howard Government has not attempted to publicly justify why these draconian new powers are needed and, how turning ASIO into a secret police force will in any way assist in deterring the threat of terrorist action, either here in Australia or anywhere overseas.

Labor believes that the ASIO Bill is unacceptable. There are a number of critical problems with Bill - they include:

1. Australians not suspected of any offence could be detained by ASIO for questioning – ASIO has never had powers of detention before;

2. Those detained by ASIO would not have the right to legal advice;

3. ASIO would be given the powers to detain children for questioning; and

4. The Government's proposals will significantly change the role of ASIO by giving it powers of coercion and detention.

Ladies & gentlemen, it is our belief that the measures being insisted upon by the Government are unnecessary to combat terrorism.

Two parliamentary committees found that, in its current form, the Bills would be open to serious abuse. Both described it as one of the most controversial pieces of legislation considered by this parliament in recent times. They proposed a number of amendments, including:

• a seven-day limit on detention;
• requirement for representation by security cleared lawyers;
• protocols for detention & interview which are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny;
• protection against self-incrimination;
• the exclusion of anyone under 18 from interrogation and detention;
• accountability and reporting measures in relation to warrants; and
• a three year sunset clause.

As I have noted, in addition to the concerns expressed by the two parliamentary committees, Labor is concerned that the Bill allows people to be detained who are not suspected of any criminal activity. It also allows them to be questioned by ASIO rather than a law enforcement agency.

In our opinion, this involves a radical departure from established legal and human rights principles.

Professor George Williams has stated that the ASIO Bill would establish part of the apparatus of a police state and says that it would not be out of place in some former dictatorships. Labor shares those concerns.

Not surprisingly, Professor Williams has noted that, if passed in its current form, the ASIO Bill could be challenged by the High Court because it breaches basic constitutional and legal principles.

The ASIO Bill goes further than equivalent US, UK and Canadian laws in two critical areas – that is, (1) those countries do not allow the detention of citizens not themselves suspected of any offence, and (2) in those countries, citizens are not detained in secret without legal advice.

ASIO already has extensive powers to investigate terrorist activities including use of telecommunications interception, listening devices, tracking devices, covert searches and inspection of postal items.

The Australian Federal Police's authority to investigate terrorist activities has also been broadened this year with the enactment of new offences relating to terrorist organisations.

The Government's proposed new powers for ASIO are extreme and are designed with one objective only – to play wedge politics with our nation's security.

Labor will not be intimidated by this crude piece of political blackmail.

In the House of Representatives, Labor will move a Second Reading Amendment and we will vote against the ASIO Bill.

When the Bill is introduced into the Senate, Labor will move a referral to a Senate References Committee to examine alternative ways of enhancing the capacity of our law enforcement agencies to counter terrorism without compromising civil liberties.

Labor will propose that the Senate committee:

• Develops an alternative regime in which questioning to obtain intelligence relating to terrorism is conducted not by ASIO but by the AFP, including proper arrangements for detention of terrorist suspects, and questioning of persons not suspected of any offence;
• Investigates the relationship between ASIO and the AFP in the investigation of terrorist activities or offences;
• Reviews the adequacy of Australia's current information and intelligence gathering methods to investigate potential terrorist activities or offences; and
• Reviews recent overseas legislation dealing with the investigation of potential terrorist activities or offences and whether the Bill in its current or amended form is constitutionally sound.

The Senate must examine alternative ways of enhancing the capacity of our law enforcement agencies to counter terrorism without compromising civil liberties.

Conclusion

Perhaps John Howard intended the Terrorism & ASIO Bills to be another political wedge. If so, the wedge failed.

I believe this was primarily because the Parliamentary Labor Party stuck to our guns and stuck to our principles, achieving strong, safe and defensible outcomes.

Labor has demonstrated conclusively that we support tough laws on terrorists but, as we have said and as I will say again, we insist that the laws target the terrorists and only the terrorists.

In responding to the threat of terrorism, we must ensure that we do not overreach and threaten those very important democratic freedoms and values that we hold dear. Our response has to be strong, our response has to be effective and our response must be consistent with democratic values and freedoms.

If Australia is under threat we must respond, as the Labor Party has always responded throughout our history.

We have always been at the forefront in defending Australia's interests from whatever threat our interests may face, and we will be at the forefront in defending this country against the threat of terrorism.

I say again: we will also be at the forefront in defending the rights and liberties of Australian citizens. That is the Labor way.