Senator BROWN (4:37 PM) —I move:

This is the sunset clause, which would ensure that, at the expiry of five years, were this bill to pass the Senate, there would be an end to it. That brings into play the review that is necessary—the review of the legislation and its workings, of what shortcomings it has and what advantages there might be from it. It is very important that we have a review like this. We are trespassing onto dangerous ground with this legislation even if the amendments, for example, that the opposition want to move are put into place.

I remind senators that as this legislation stands there are wide-ranging powers of discretion given to the Attorney-General and presumably to the cabinet of the day. Those powers would allow for organisations in the Australian community to be banned. Keep in mind the 1954 exercise where, after both major parties voted to ban the Communist Party, the people of Australia overthrew that.

Senator Robert Ray —Even in 1951.

Senator Faulkner —It was not 1954; it was 1951.

Senator BROWN —No, they overthrew it in 1954, but the parties moved to ban it in 1951. Then there was a High Court procedure which led to 1954.

Senator Robert Ray —I don't think so.

Senator BROWN —Well, I do think so. Here we have a situation in which the parliament is saying: let the Attorney-General have powers not too dissimilar from those involved in the banning of the Communist Party over any organisation in the country which she or he thinks is a terrorist organisation. Then we have a definition of terrorism and a number of matters which could be entertained as being of a terrorist nature. It is those that we in the Greens and others in this chamber are very concerned about, because the powers are far too wide and far too lax. As I say, even with several amendments that are coming through, they will remain under great question. Therefore I commend this amendment.

I should point out that, while it has taken the government a long while to get this legislation here after the terrible events of last September—it has shown no great urgency—the legislation is in response to the events of last September. Noting that, five years down the line it would be extremely prudent for us to review how that legislation was working and, indeed, what the passage of events had been. We are currently living in a world where people are made more fearful because of September 11 and also because of the almost weekly news coming out of the authorities in the United States of the threat of new attacks. None of those attacks have come to be so far, but we have seen news about threats to the Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge, bridges in California, dams—to a whole range of people and institutions—none of which have come to be.

In a climate of fear like that, it is easy to respond with legislation which truncates long valued civil and human rights and democratic rights in this country of ours. We should be very careful about that. We should certainly insist that this legislation be under review. The impulse to ensure that review occurs ought to be the automatic end to the legislation unless there is shown to be good cause for keeping it in place, remembering that there will be at least one election between now and the expiry time of five years.