Mr McCLELLAND (1:47 PM) —May I commend the contribution just given by the member for Wentworth, and contrast that with the uncharacteristically almost hysterical speech by the member for Mitchell, which quite significantly demeaned the quality of this debate on the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002. That is what we are talking about—the quality of the law-making capacity of this parliament. We, collectively, are paid a considerable amount of money. Collectively, we have access to tremendous resources— whether it be the library resources or the services of the clerks—to assist us, in our role as legislators, to get it right.

I would like to contrast two examples. Firstly, there is what occurred in respect of the Intelligence Services (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001, which went to the Joint Select Committee on Intelligence Services. Look at the number of tremendously qualified members from both houses, some frontbench and some backbench, who made a tremendous cross-party effort and came up with a unanimous report in respect of highly controversial issues—that is, additional powers being given to Australia's security intelligence services. Anyone who wants to see the contribution that that constructive legislative approach makes need only contrast the act that came out—the Intelligence Services Act 2001—with the bill. Clearly, a number of constructive amendments were made, and clearly the mere fact that that consultative process had taken place eased public apprehension.

This type of legislation, where there is a conflict between the fundamental need for security that all governments must provide as their foremost responsibility and the civil rights of citizens, is always controversial. This is particularly so in complex areas, particularly where there is this necessary interaction with law making, international security and counterterrorism measures. There are always going to be apprehensions in the community. The best way of allaying those apprehensions and getting the community on board for the actions of this legislature is to use a consultative approach. Contrast that approach to what happened with the first border protection legislation introduced by the government last September. I think we had less than an hour's notice. Indeed, I do not think the explanatory memorandum was available by the time the bill came into the House.

Mr Melham —Not until the third reading.

Mr McCLELLAND —My colleague the member for Banks points out that it was not until the third reading that it was available. To contrast that, the government walked away from that legislation when they had the time to review it. Why? Because its thrust was basically that any person—and `person' was referred to generally—on board a ship coming into Australian waters could be put back on that ship and expelled from Australian waters. `Ship' was defined literally as `any floating vessel'. That legislation, as the government realised, could have applied to pleasure seekers on a yacht in the Whitsundays as much as it could have applied to people illegally trying to enter Australia. The government realised that, abandoned that and came up with alternative measures which ultimately we had the capacity to support.

I say that not to score a point but to point out the difference in the legislative approaches—one is a process that gets constructive, balanced and sensible legislation which is tested across the chamber and the other one is where the government attempts to score political points. We are trying to take away any anxiety about the effect of this legislation, by agreeing to the bills being amended to have a commencement date as of last night—the date that they were introduced into the House. We are not about trying to delay or obstruct; we are all about trying to get a better package of legislation for the Australian people and indeed getting the Australian people on side in terms of the need to introduce what are unquestionably severe measures that are necessary in many respects because of the severity of that which we confront.

The reality today is that Australia's personal security is far less likely to be affected by war than it is by terrorist activity. There is no doubt about that. That is why the Australian Labor Party supported last year in a very inclusive sense the defence civil call-out legislation that enabled our defence forces to be called out with respect to a terrorist incident. If I may comment on my own behalf—certainly on behalf of my colleague the member for Denison then—when the public controversy came regarding those provisions, more often than not we were contacted by the media to defend the provisions of the legislation, because the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence had gone absent without leave. We were prepared to take the ball-up on the need for strong measures to protect Australian citizens from potential terrorist activity. That remains our position.

Let me talk in terms of the general concepts of this interaction between terrorism and civil rights. Is there a conflict? I am one of those persons who say that the most fundamental human right that citizens have is the right to security—and we are of course protecting Australian citizens. The human rights of thousands of people who were killed in the September 11 terrorist attack in New York, some 15 Australians among them, were fundamentally denied to them on that day—their right to life, their right to work, their right to freedom from arbitrary interference in family life and their right to freedom from discrimination based on religion or nationality. Their fundamental rights were obliterated in a single incident. That is why the right to security underpins all other human rights. Unless a citizen is physically secure, a citizen cannot enjoy those other fundamental human rights.

I will tell an interesting story. The Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, who was hailed both domestically and internationally as the hero of New York after the September 11 event, is famous for his zero tolerance law and order policies in New York. I should say that, before becoming mayor, he was a prominent civil rights activist. He saw no inconsistency with strong law and order policies and the civil rights of citizens. I am not necessarily advocating any zero tolerance policies, but I am pointing out that someone who is so passionately committed to human rights saw that security of the citizen was the most fundamental of rights.

But let us talk about it in terms of the analysis of rights from a historical point of view. One of the modern human rights thinkers was Thomas Hobbes. Central to Hobbes's thoughts was the role of a strong state in securing the existence of a civil society free from arbitrary violence so that, within that society, men and women could enjoy real freedom, opportunity and security. So what we are talking about is entirely consistent with those philosophies on human rights. We are talking here about principles of clamping down on terrorism.

Indeed, it was during the Second World War itself that the United Nations declarations, covenants and conventions flowed from the recognition of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights as one of the most significant purposes of world organisation. That was the recognition of a connection between the protection of human rights and the protection of international peace and security. Any advocate of security at any price or through tough talk alone needs to re-read the United Nations charter and reconsider how often in the history of the last century it was lack of respect for human rights which led to the threats to peace and security. Any human rights advocate who might deride talk of security likewise needs to re-read the United Nations charter with its recognition of the right of nations to defend themselves and its provisions for the use of armed force to protect international security.

It was under these provisions, of course, that the Hawke Labor government joined in armed action to expel Saddam Hussein from his illegal occupation of Kuwait. It was as a result of those principles that the former leader of the Australian Labor Party, in a letter to President Bush shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, said:

That quote demonstrates the commitment of the Australian Labor Party to an international order where terrorist activity cannot survive. The United Nations emphasis on human rights goes back to the middle of the Second World War to the Atlantic Charter, which was drafted on board a battleship and was agreed between Churchill and Roosevelt—not exactly two soft-hearted or soft-headed wits—meeting in the depths of a desperate struggle for security and survival. The whole concept of the interaction between security and rights was seen as crucial in those heated times. That fundamental interaction remains equally as valid today.

The SPEAKER —It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A.