Mr SOMLYAY (2:19 PM) —My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney advise the House of government measures to streamline the proscribing of terrorist organisations that potentially threaten the Australian community? Is the Attorney-General aware of other policies that would hamper Australia's ability to respond quickly to a potential threat?

Mr RUDDOCK (Attorney-General) —I thank the member for Fairfax for his question and for the opportunity to comment on the importance of national security arrangements. This government believes that it is incumbent upon it to take appropriate steps to protect the Australian community. As I have said before—and particularly in the statement that I made in the week before last—Australians have a fundamental human right to live in safety and security, and governments have a fundamental obligation to provide that safety net for the Australian community as a whole. People should be able to live without fear of terrorist groups operating with impunity within our borders. We have always acted quickly and decisively to deal with these issues, and we believe that governments should always have the powers to do just that—for instance, to quickly and decisively list terrorist organisations that pose a threat to our national security. We need appropriate safety mechanisms that do not leave us reliant on other bodies such as the United Nations, or perhaps a court or a tribunal, to determine that it is appropriate for the government to make a decision in relation to those matters.

I am pleased to say the opposition has indicated that it will now be supporting amendments to the terrorist crimes legislation that is before the Senate at this time. That will effectively allow for the proscription of a terrorist organisation by the government without necessarily having to have a notification by the United Nations and without the precondition that a court or tribunal consent to it before the government can act. I thank the opposition for the indication of its agreement in relation to that matter. But I might say that I am disappointed that it has taken some two years and a lot of negotiation to reach this point—because to get to a point where we have reasonable powers that enable the government to act quickly on this matter without having to recall this parliament and the Senate to pass a bill specifically case by case is only sensible.

We know that Labor initially would only support a listing if the United Nations Security Council had agreed to that listing. We know from the past that the United Nations lists many organisations but not all terrorist organisations—and there are reasons for that. Labor then said, `Look, we'll only agree to it if you have a court approve beforehand that it is appropriate to have a proscription decision.' Then it was suggested that we should have the AAT do it; and then it was suggested that we should have the AAT provide an advisory opinion. I simply note that no government would be in a position to act promptly and quickly in relation to these matters if they did not have a proscription power in the form that we have sought.

I note that the opposition have also said that, if they were elected to government, they would revert to a court based approval before acting. I must say I think that sits uncomfortably with what the Leader of the Opposition has had to say, and that is:

I think it is incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to make it clear that, if he is going to lead on these issues, this policy—which harks back to the roll-back of his predecessors—will be abandoned.