Senator HOGG (1:19 PM) —As Senator Brown has rightly identified, the government are proposing a number of amendments to their own legislation. The Labor Party are putting some extra amendments to that legislation which will go to allaying the fears in the community. But there is one issue that I want to address about this bill before I get into it in any detail. There are people out there who have genuine concerns about the legislation, and rightfully so. Those people come from genuine positions, and I have no doubt about that. But the thing lacking in this debate has been serious information such that people can understand what the debate is about. As Senator Faulkner said, and rightly so, the blame there lies at the feet of the government. The government did not allow sufficient time, firstly, for this legislation to be understood and, secondly, for people to come to a determination on the legislation—that they otherwise supported it or were opposed to it.

So what has happened is that the bill has been fertile ground for a number of conspiracy theorists out there. It has been surrounded by hype, myths and wrong information. It has also been surrounded by some very good information. But at the end of the day I have had the circular and serial emailists sending me emails on their views on this bill and I would presume that many of them have never, ever read one word of the bill nor understand any part of the bill. That is the first thing that people must understand in this highly charged debate taking place in this nation about this particular bill.

Of course the journalists can cop a bit of blame in this as well because some of them have never let the facts get in the way of a good story. What we have seen has undoubtedly been lazy journalism. Those who have taken time to sit down and examine the legislation word by word will see, as Senator Brown has rightly pointed out and as others will point out in this debate, that there are defects in the legislation that was brought forward by the government. The fact that it has been subject to perusal and evidence before a Senate committee has enabled the debate to open up. But of course what a lot of people have not done is read the bill itself, the explanatory memorandum—and that is not everyone's cup of tea—the Senate committee report or the Hansard of the hearing before the Senate committee. So many people are forming their views in isolation—in a vacuum—or based on second- or third-hand information at best.

As I understand it, the Commonwealth has always had broad powers under the Constitution which allow it to use troops in domestic violence situations. In that sense there is nothing new. The bill actually introduces safeguards and processes which are not currently there. So here we have—albeit with, in some instances, people with grave concerns about what might be happening—a tightening of the situation, rather than an opening up of the situation. So the bill puts safeguards and processes in place. No-one—not even I—would start to claim that these processes and safeguards are perfect, but they are undoubtedly a better starting point than where we are currently. One would expect that the bill would therefore be welcomed rather than looked upon cynically.

There have been longstanding plans to counter terrorism in this country should it occur. I hope beyond all hope that it will never occur. However, there is a national antiterrorist plan. That document of course is a restricted document. That document outlines the reactions where terrorism strikes at the very heart of our society. I understand that the terms of this plan are considered by a group called SAC-PAV, which stands for the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth/State Cooperation for Protection Against Violence. This committee, I am led to believe, represents all states and territories such that they have a direct input through the processes of SAC-PAV on the national antiterrorist plan and on other related issues. So the states are aware of how, at the Commonwealth level, there would be a reaction to terrorism should it manifest itself in our society.

I understand that the broad terms of this bill—but never the detail—were before SAC-PAV. Of course, this is part of the problem with the process. On SAC-PAV there are various representatives of the states, and it seems to me that the states' representatives either failed to acknowledge that this bill was being mooted at that body or just did not understand what was happening. Regardless of that, the obligation was there for the government to widely canvass and consult with interested parties as to the implications and the ultimate prospect of what this legislation might hold for the wider community.

As I understand this bill, it codifies and puts into legislation the principles that have been agreed to by the states on action to be taken and the circumstances in which it can be taken when there is terrorist activity. This bill in that sense is not anything really new. However, I believe that this bill puts a break on the call-out and the use of the defence forces by putting procedures in place. It opens them up to transparency and accountability, which must in its own right be a good thing.

As I said, the consultation process was poor. The government should not have relied on any discussions within SAC-PAV. Liaison between SAC-PAV members and their relevant state governments seems to have been poor. Of course, that cannot be used as an excuse for the poor consultation. There cannot be an assumption by the Commonwealth that, where such bodies exist, there is appropriate reporting or feedback from the representatives on the body to the state premiers or the chief ministers.

It is interesting to look at some of the headings in the legislation. Division 1 covers `Calling out and directing utilisation of Defence Force'. There are three important sections there—51A, 51B and 51C—under which authorisation is sought to call out the forces either in the Commonwealth's interest or at the request of a state or territory. The only way the call-out can be effected in the first instance is by the agreement of the three ministers: the three ministers being the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence. I do not know how many people out there in the community understand that—that those three ministers must be in total agreement, not to call out the defence forces but to go to the Governor-General to seek an order for the call-out of the defence forces.

It is being portrayed that it is going to be the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence or the Attorney-General who are going to be the people who are responsible for the call-out. They only will go to the Governor-General, who—in consultation, as I understand it, with the Executive Council, or in consultation with one of the authorising ministers in extraordinary circumstances—will authorise the call-out of the defence forces for a domestic violence situation. So it is not a simple process to start off with. If one looks at the evidence that was presented to the committee, one finds that, in particular, where states have made those requests in the past, the government of the day has refused to proceed down the path of seeking the cooperation of the Governor-General to call out the forces. So it is not something that has been a daily practice and typified Australian history.

In division 2 of the bill, the heading is quite important indeed. It is `Powers to recapture buildings and free hostages etc', and clearly refers to the recapturing of buildings held by terrorists where they have hostages. Division 2 specifically, as we had in evidence before the committee, was to be used by the SAS. I can tell you that, if I were a hostage and had a gun at my head, there is no finer group of people that I would expect to get me out than the SAS. That is what that section refers specifically to. It does not refer to a local community group who are protesting because something is happening in their district; it is specifically designed for and aimed at terrorist operations.

Division 3 of the bill goes to the general security powers, covering what things can be done, in order, such as the making of what is called a `general security area'. This is the area in which the powers under this bill can operate. But the general security area is covered by a statement that has to be published which gives an idea of the declaration that has to be made and the area described as being the general security area. There is a provision that it must be broadcast. That is a far cry from what happens currently. That is a far more desirable situation. Whilst it might not be a panacea, it is, nonetheless, a far cry from what currently happens under the general call-out provisions. Under the same division, division 3, there is a `designated area'. When we pursued it at the Senate committee inquiry, we found it is an area where `hot action' occurs—in other words, where hostages are held and terrorists are operating. That clearly would be an area inside the general security area. But, interestingly, section 51S of the bill requires members to wear uniforms and identification when exercising powers in the general security area. It is only in the designated area that, as I understand the legislation, there is not that requirement, because that is where you want SAS troops to operate. You certainly do not want SAS troops running around with flashing beacons on their heads saying, `Here I am. I am an SAS troop. I'm here to rescue such and such a hostage.' So, obviously, commonsense is something that comes into play in this bill.

Last, but not least, section 51X of division 4 of the bill requires a copy of the order that has been made by the Governor-General and any declarations under it to be reported, including a report on the utilisation of the defence forces under the order. The report is to be tabled in parliament, published on the web site or otherwise released. The committee made a recommendation, which went further than what the government originally had in the bill, which will ensure that the appropriate reporting is not something that lags in time, is lost or is waylaid. The committee recommended that, within seven days of the cessation of the call-out, the report be tabled in both houses of parliament and that there be a review within three months. It was hoped that this recommendation of the committee would achieve a transparent process. It was also hoped that it would make any government, regardless of its political persuasion—given the way this government currently is going, it may not be long before my colleagues are confronted with the use of these powers—both accountable and transparent in its actions. That is an important thing indeed.

There was mention before the committee of a sunset clause. The reaction by the committee—and by me, as a member of the committee—was that there should be no sunset clause but the bill itself should be subject to review. The reason quite simply was that, if we subject this piece of legislation to a sunset clause, we will be back to where we are now with no legislation, no transparency and no accountability. But we have, as we always have, the right to have Australian defence forces called out. I would much rather see the environment exist whereby it is transparent and accountable—in particular, accountable to this parliament. At the end of the day, this parliament is the responsible place, so a sunset clause is quite inappropriate.

Those who argued that it should be for the duration of the Olympics have, I believe, missed the point. The fact is that the powers have always been there for call-out; what we have now is a codification. Whilst I understand that there are groups out there who have legitimate concerns about the operation of this bill—and rightfully so—no-one is more concerned about its operation than me. But it would have been nice if a few more colleagues with an interest in this bill had turned up to quiz those who appeared before us at the Senate inquiry. Nonetheless, that was not the case—they may well have been otherwise occupied. I have a grave concern always about the pre-eminent rights of people to demonstrate, to express dissent, to strike and to free speech. That is an innate part of me as a person, and I make no apologies for it. But there are also balancing factors in our society which we must take into account. Those balancing factors include the common good of people when we are confronted by things such as terrorism.

My colleague Senator Faulkner outlined in his speech earlier today Labor's foreshadowed amendments to put in place quite severe restrictions. These will allay much of the fear currently being expressed out there in the community about this bill, some of it wise and well-informed, some of it unwise and quite ill-informed. As I said at the start, because this government failed to give an appropriate amount of time to properly debate this bill, we now have the debate that is taking place today.

I heard Senator Bourne mention the issue of training under this piece of legislation. It should be noted that this issue was canvassed at the Senate committee hearings, and I think one will find that most of the Australian defence forces who are prepared to operate under the national antiterrorist plan already have this form of training in place. I would hate to think that people are ill-prepared and unable to meet the strong requirements that there are in this bill. I understand that that is in the process of being addressed by the defence forces. One would hope that neither the Australian government nor any state government have to resort to the call-out provisions but, if they do, they will be held accountable, the government will be held accountable, and it will be a transparent procedure. (Time expired)