Senator FAULKNER (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5:56 PM) —Mr Acting Deputy President, you will recall that, a little earlier today, I was indicating to the Senate that the listing of al-Qaeda, three months after the government was given the power to do it, was in fact done only after the Attorney-General was asked by the Labor opposition why al-Qaeda had not been listed as a terrorist organisation in Australia. If the opposition had not fronted the Attorney-General on the listing of al-Qaeda, who knows how long we would have waited to see al-Qaeda banned in Australia. The pattern of this government is clear: strike fear into the hearts of Australians and tell them there is a problem, but address it only when it suits it or if the government remembers. Labor is prepared to address this issue. That is why we have proposed the Criminal Code Amendment (Hezbollah External Terrorist Organisation) Bill 2003. That is why we will be proposing today a better, safer and more balanced way to handle the proscription of organisations. The threat of terrorism has brought home the realisation that distance from the front line is no guarantee of safety. In fact, there is no front line in the fight against terrorism.

Today the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist Organisations) Bill 2003 proposes to take our liberties from us in exchange for vague promises of security. Labor will not trade those values and principles that make us a free and democratic nation. It is a fact well known to political parties that the wages of fear are electoral success. I do not forget that during the last election campaign this government ensured that asylum seekers were not `humanised', to use its word, by banning the media from covering Operation Relex. I do not forget that Peter Reith claimed that there were terrorists on those boats. I do not forget the deceits and lies of the `children overboard' scandal. That is how low this government can go. The Australian Labor Party stands implacably opposed to those who want Australians living in a cage of fear. Governments have a responsibility to make sure that the community is safe and secure. They also have a responsibility not to twist these issues to political advantage. This government argues that a regime of executive proscription can keep Australia safe. The Attorney-General has argued that we can be safe only if we give up our freedoms. How cynical is that!

I say that we cannot be safe unless we are free. Our liberties and rights as citizens are fundamental to our system of government and our rule of law. Freedom is not incompatible with safety; it is essential to it. The government's proposals to erode our freedoms and our rights will ultimately erode our security as well. For this reason, we do not accept and will not accept the government's executive proscription bill. We will not accept a regime of secret proscriptions, of decisions in closed rooms, of such significant and potentially destructive power in the hands of one person and one person alone. To have that kind of power exercised by one person in secret, particularly a member of a government executive—and, worse still, a member of the Howard government executive—is not acceptable in a democratic society and it should never be allowed on the statute books.

The decision to black-list an organisation, to make it a crime to belong to that organisation, should be made on the basis of hard evidence. That is why Labor proposes to refer these questions to the courts, where the facts can be heard, debated and considered and where decisions are made by those who have nothing to fear from poll results or the withdrawal of prime ministerial patronage. If evidence is available to properly satisfy an attorney-general on a reasonable basis that an organisation is a terrorist organisation, this evidence can be used to satisfy a court. Court procedures can be adopted and adapted to provide around-the-clock access to quick and efficient hearings that, where necessary, can be held in closed session. Further, by ensuring the matter is determined by a court and not by the Attorney-General, the process would be focused on evidence and be taken away from politics and the perception that a decision to ban an organisation was done for political purposes.

Therefore, we propose to amend the government's Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist Organisations) Bill 2003 to remove secret proscription by the executive and replace it with a process by which the Attorney-General may apply to the courts for a judicial declaration in relation to that organisation. Our amendment, to provide for the application to a court for a ruling on whether or not an organisation is an international terrorist organisation, adds another mechanism to combat terrorist organisations. The processes will be (1) United Nations Security Council listing, (2) a court ruling arising from a prosecution for terrorist acts, (3) a court declaration after an application by the Attorney-General and (4), and only as a last resort, a specific amendment to the Crimes Act listing an organisation by name, as we are doing in the case of the Hezbollah external terrorist security organisation.

If the government accepts Labor's amendments to the terrorist organisations bill, an expeditious court based process will eliminate the need to rely on the parliament each time concerns arise about the terrorist activities of an international organisation. These four mechanisms would provide a balanced, flexible and safe regime to protect Australia. It will equip our courts, our police and our security organisations with the legal tools to attack terrorism. At the same time, it will protect Australia from the arbitrary and unaccountable abuse of executive power by ensuring that an objective assessment of all available evidence will be the basis of any decision made to ban an organisation. I commend the opposition's approach to the Senate.