Mr DUTTON (11:22 AM) —I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hamas and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba) Bill 2003. Like many Australians, I found the news of the arrest of Willie Brigitte last week a further sobering thought in the reality of the serious threat posed by terrorists to our free way of life. Brigitte has demonstrated linkages with al-Qaeda and trained with LET, a Pakistani based terrorist group which is responsible for the deaths of scores of Indians and has connections with the evil al-Qaeda.

For generations, the issue of terrorism has been viewed by most Australians as a tragic occurrence taking place in the far distant Middle East, in Ireland or in another distant place. The television footage and newspaper articles were viewed with disbelief but they posed no direct threat to our way of life. Not a second thought was given to taking the kids to school the following morning, catching the bus to work or catching up with friends for a coffee or a bite to eat. Of course, the circumstances of the organised, cold and calculated slaying of thousands of people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania awoke our nation to a new threat to our free and easy existence. The wakening was more stark than it was for previous generations of Australians who had faced a known and identifiable enemy. Today's enemy can strike unassuming, innocent people anywhere in the world at any time.

By the time the tragic details of 11 September 2001 filtered through to Australians, our country and way of life had already changed forever. The horrific acts in Bali just over 12 months ago, not only in a place closer to home than ever before but also where our own people were among the dead and seriously wounded, only underscored the new reality. The new reality is a world where terrorists, many with a fundamental religious fanaticism, despise our Western culture and the freedom and democracy that until now many have taken for granted. The new reality is that our nation, not by choice but by necessity, has had to reassess our laws and regulations and create a capacity which will allow our intelligence and law enforcement bodies to minimise the threat posed to our society. The Australian people expect nothing less and it is the view of the Howard government that they will get nothing less.

The first priority of any government, and certainly of this government, must be the effective protection of its people. Frankly, economic success and all the other achievements of this government will count for nothing if we are not prepared to put the safety of the Australian people first and foremost, and that is what we are doing today. This bill introduced by this government must be the first step in rectifying deficiencies in current legislation, and the Labor Party must now take the decision as to whether they are capable of also acting in the national interest.

Earlier today, this parliament witnessed a contribution by the Leader of the Opposition which demonstrated in clear terms his inability to support a view held by the majority of Australians over a view held by the ideologically driven left of the Australian Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition enunciated a view this morning on this broader issue of proscribing an organisation and he suggested—as did the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton, earlier—that proscribing a terrorist organisation should be left not to this parliament but to the judiciary. That is the Australian Labor Party's position. They say that the government of the day is incapable of making a decision to act in the best interests of the Australian people.

This position deserves much greater scrutiny because, putting aside any argument about the separation of powers, it highlights a fundamental flaw in this ideological position taken by the Australian Labor Party. The basis of their position, and the justification that their stance lies on, is an assertion that, because of the circumstances surrounding proscription some generations ago concerning debate over the Communist Party, the government of the day is incapable of making a decision to proscribe a terrorist organisation in this parliament. It is an absurd proposition. I say with complete conviction that it is one that the Australian people will see as ridiculous and unsustainable. The Australian people elect the government of the day to act in their best interests.

This is a demonstration of how the Howard government—the Australian government—will act in Australians' best interests. If we are hearing from the Labor Party that the elected government and the elected representatives in this place are incapable of taking an executive decision to proscribe an organisation because of something that happened 30 or 40 years ago in relation to the Communist Party then they really are not serious about providing an alternative to the Australian people. It shows an underlying problem in relation to the stance and position of the current Leader of the Opposition. He surely must be able to see that it is in the best interests of Australians and of this country that the government of the day is able to act swiftly and in accord with the view of the Australian people—and indeed of the world community—to proscribe these organisations for being a particular threat to the Australian people. Make no mistake about what it is that this government is trying to do and about the broader debate that we engage in today. The debate we engage in today is about providing for the Australian people, through their elected representatives, the ability to proscribe organisations that pose specific and definite threats to the safety and security of this nation.

If the Labor Party are arguing that this place and this government, or the government of a future day, are not capable of taking that decision and if they believe that that decision should rest with the judiciary—the unelected judiciary—then that is a shameful and untenable position. Like many positions that have been adopted by the Australian Labor Party in this debate before, I suspect that it will change in the fullness of time.

Mr DUTTON —There are members opposite who interject on this issue and who hold very strong and passionate beliefs about terrorism that takes place overseas. If they want to thrust Australia into the same position and into an untenable future, they need to continue down the same line they are on in the debate today. We are talking about two organisations today that are at the tip of the iceberg. One of them is Hamas, which is a dreadful organisation that has wreaked havoc throughout the Middle East for many years. To suggest that this government or an Australian government of future days is not capable of taking a decision to proscribe such organisations really does leave the Australian Labor Party completely out of touch with the view of all Australians.

It is important as part of this debate today that we look at the proscribing of terrorist organisations and the procedures that are in place before a listing can be made. We know that we already have in place a well-established process for listing an organisation. That process will not change as a result of this bill. It is very important to note that the only thing that will change is that one element of the assessment—that an organisation first be placed as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations—will be removed. The Australian Labor Party, not only in this debate, advocate that organisations should be first proscribed by the United Nations, which is a completely unworkable situation. They are saying now that there should be a further roadblock put in the way, that these organisations should be proscribed by the judiciary—not by this parliament, the people's parliament, the people's voice in the Australian community, but by the judiciary—after first being proscribed by the United Nations. It is an absurd proposition and it is one that is unsustainable if they want to offer themselves as an alternative government to the Australian people at the upcoming election.

I want to continue in relation to the listing of terrorist organisations. It is important to explain the very responsible position that this government puts. First, the Director-General of Security provides material to the Attorney-General's Department regarding the background, training activities, terrorist activities and relevant statements of the organisation in question. The Australian Government Solicitor then provides advice on whether the material provided by the director-general is sufficient to enable the Attorney-General to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the relevant criteria for the listing of the organisation have been met. The Attorney-General's Department then provides a submission for the Attorney-General which sets out the information and recommends that the organisation be listed as a terrorist organisation, based on the evidence received by the Director-General of Security. The Attorney-General, who considers the submission, must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the relevant organisation is engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, whether or not the terrorist attack has occurred or will occur. Importantly, if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the criteria have been met, he then signs a statement summarising the grounds upon which the organisation meets the requirements for a listing and approves the proposed regulation for the listing of the organisation and accompanying documentation.

I would suggest that it is the view of all reasonable Australians that that is a sustainable position to adopt. This government has taken a very measured stance and approach in relation to the proscribing of organisations and, indeed, to the measures strengthening the powers provided to ASIO. At every turn we have been blocked by the Australian Labor Party. The Australian people must recognise as part of this debate today that, behind the scenes, the Australian Labor Party seek to undermine the process taken by the government at every available opportunity. This is something that needs to be spelt out very clearly because, despite the rhetoric that we will hear from the opposition spokesperson for foreign affairs shortly, and from the member for Banks and the member for Denison—

Mr Rudd —How do you know what I'm going to say, boofhead?

Mr DUTTON —What you are going to say, member for Griffith, is very predictable. What you are going to do, like those before you and those who will follow you, is talk the talk but not walk the walk. As on many of these issues—and it is certainly no better demonstrated than in the issue of terrorist organisations and legislation—for the Australian Labor Party, led by the member for Griffith, the talk will be great and the action will be nothing. It has happened in many debates before. He aspires to be Leader of the Opposition and we know that that is the ultimate goal. I notice we only have one of the `roosters' in the chamber today. We know that in this circumstance they are setting up the Leader of the Opposition for yet another fall. The member for Griffith knows that that position is unsustainable and, despite the talk and the rhetoric that will come from him and other members opposite as part of this debate, we know that at the end of the day they are being undermined by the Left of the Labor Party and that the caucus are not with them on this issue.

It is important as part of this debate today that the Australian people recognise that the Labor Party are not only weak in relation to trying to proscribe organisations that may pose some terrorist threat to the Australian people; they have also undermined every step that has been taken by this government to strengthen the position of our law enforcement and intelligence bodies in trying to combat the evils of terrorism.

I want to finish in support of this bill today by saying that the election is only 12 months away and it is time that the Australian Labor Party started to listen to the message that is being sent to them by the Australian people. The Australian people want to maintain our way of life. We want to maintain our freedom and our democracy. We can maintain that freedom and democracy in generations to come only if we take the hard decisions today in relation to clamping down on terrorism. This bill before the House today is a demonstration of this government's commitment to provide as best we can security to future generations of Australians.

Australia faces in the current age its greatest threat in many generations. Unless the Labor Party support us in clamping down with very definite measures on terrorism, we will witness atrocities like those that have taken place not just in the Middle East, the United Kingdom and the United States but as close to home as Indonesia. There can be no more horrific thought than a terrorism attack taking place on Australian soil and Australians being affected by such an atrocity. The reality is that this government needs to provide the greatest resources to our intelligence and security bodies so that they at least have a fighting chance of preventing that sort of atrocity.

My plea today is for the Australian Labor Party to support the government not just on this bill but on further measures which would see the sanctity of the Australian parliament preserved and give us the ability to make the decision in future times to proscribe organisations without having them first proscribed by the United Nations and certainly without having to have them proscribed by the judiciary. There is a disallowable instrument in relation to the proscription of these organisations which can be taken up by the Senate in extreme circumstances. Safeguards exist in relation to this legislation. The position taken by this government is an entirely sustainable and strong one, and our plea today, on behalf of the Australian people, must be for the Australian Labor Party to support the Howard government's strong stance on protecting Australia's interests.