Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill
Page: 10112
Second Reading
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.20 p.m.]: I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill is the second bill implementing the counter-terrorist reform package announced by the Government on 14 May. Counter-terrorism is a co-ordinated effort involving each jurisdiction in Australia. In 2002 Australian States and Territories including New South Wales referred power to the Commonwealth for terrorist matters and, as a result, the Commonwealth enacted broad-ranging terrorist offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. These offences deal with every aspect of terrorist activity, including planning, training, membership, financing and organisation. Since that time the Government has not rested. New South Wales has participated in counter-terrorist planning and training exercises under the banner of the national anti-terrorism plan. Our police have developed their tactical hostage rescue and bomb disposal skills, and developed their ability to respond to a terrorist situation in order to protect the citizens of New South Wales.
In 2002 the Government enacted the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act, which gives police extraordinary powers to stop and search persons and vehicles, or to search areas and buildings, in order to prevent a terrorist attack, or after an attack to assist in catching the terrorists red-handed. We have established the Counter-Terrorism Co-ordination Command within NSW Police, which conducts investigations with other State and Commonwealth agencies into terrorist activity in New South Wales. The Government has boosted the NSW Police budget by $2.1 million per annum to fund the Counter Terrorism Co-ordination Command, thus ensuring that police have all the necessary equipment and training needed to respond to a terrorist attack. In addition, the Government is spending a further $9.1 million on new equipment for counter-terrorist response, including new bomb disposal equipment such as bomb disposal robots and bomb containment vessels.
The Counter Terrorism Co-ordination Command’s counter-terrorist skills and equipment are regularly tested in exercises. The latest of these exercises has been Exercise Explorer, which was conducted in May and which culminated in a mock explosion at the Holsworthy Barracks on 31 May. On 6 May the Premier announced the establishment of the counter-terrorism laws task force, which includes officials from my department and the police and emergency services portfolios. The task force will monitor and review the laws of New South Wales and make recommendations for legislative amendments. In early June the first of these legislative amendments was made—the creation of a presumption against bail for persons charged with terrorist offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. This bill makes a range of other amendments to New South Wales legislation.
When it comes to prosecuting persons accused of terrorist activity under the law the first line of defence will be the terrorist offences created by the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Indeed, all persons arrested and charged in New South Wales to date have been charged with Commonwealth terrorist offences. There are limited circumstances, however, where New South Wales criminal offences will be relevant in a prosecution of terrorist activity, for instance, when there is incidental criminal activity discovered during an investigation or when there is no clear evidence that the incident was motivated by terrorism, as defined by the Commonwealth legislation, but the actions are clearly criminal under New South Wales law.
In light of the referral of power to the Commonwealth for terrorism matters, New South Wales law will not create any specific terrorist offences, but will focus on ensuring that offences of the type committed by terrorists, namely offences against the person and offences against property, are relevant and comprehensive. The bill will also clarify the trigger for the use of the powers provided to police under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and will augment the existing powers by introducing a power for the Commissioner of Police to set up cordons and give reasonable directions to Government bodies and agencies to facilitate the exercise of the powers. I will now outline the various elements of the bill.
Schedule 1 relates to amendments to the Crimes Act 1900. Item [1] inserts a definition into section 4 of the Crimes Act in respect of the use of poisons and other destructive or noxious things. Currently, there are a number of offences relating to poisoning another person, with increasing penalties relative to the intention of the offender and the harm caused to the victim. The definition makes clear that the offences in the Crimes Act are not limited to merely placing a poison in someone's drink but extends to modern terrorist tactics such as introducing a poison gas into an airconditioning system—or on a train, as happened in Tokyo—or the use of forms of radiation. Items [2] to [6] of schedule 1 deal with explosives offences. While we must be alert to the sophisticated forms of terrorism that may involve nerve gas, viruses or other toxins, it is clear the most common terrorist weapon remains the bomb.
These offences also have a more general policy application, as regardless of whether a person has terrorist motives or not they should not be possessing or using explosives or bombs unless they have a lawful or legitimate reason to be doing so. New South Wales has a range of explosives offences in several pieces of legislation. These amendments deal with the criminal offences in the Crimes Act rather then the regulatory offences contained in the Dangerous Goods Act. Item [2] amends section 48 of the Crimes Act, which currently uses quite anachronistic terminology. The new section 48 will cover placing explosives in buildings, public places as well as in forms of transport.
Item [3] amends section 55 to create an offence of possessing or making explosives with intent to injure another person. The amendments will increase the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years imprisonment. The mental element of "intent to cause injury" justifies such an increase. It is also important that such preparatory offences carry appropriate penalties, so that when police investigations intercept terrorist preparations at an early stage significant sentences are available.
Item [4] amends the heading of part 3B of the Crimes Act to include "explosives". Item [5] creates a new offence under section 93FA of possessing or making of explosives. The new offence under section 93FA has two limbs: the unlawful making or possession of an explosive, formerly section 545D, and the possession of an explosive in a public place, formerly covered under section 545E. As well as relocating the offence in the newly renamed part 3B of the Crimes Act, the bill increases the maximum penalties for making or possessing an explosive from one year to two years and possessing an explosive in a public place from two years to five years imprisonment. One of the difficulties with framing explosives offences is that many everyday common items, such as household cleaning products, can be explosive. Subsection (4), therefore, creates a defence in relation to both of these offences of reasonable excuse or lawful purpose.
Item [8] deletes section 545D. Item [6] amends section 200 of the Crimes Act and creates and offence of possession, custody or control of an article with intent to destroy or damage property. The amendment differentiates between possession of an ordinary item, which will continue to carry a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment, and possession of explosives, which will now carry maximum a penalty of seven years. Item [7] of the schedule amends section 203A of the Crimes Act, which defines "public facility" for the purposes of sabotage offences. The amendment includes a public computer system in the definition of "public facility". This will ensure that attacks, including computer virus attacks, on such important facilities as the Australian Stock Exchange come within the scope of the sabotage offence. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years.
Schedule 2 contains amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Schedule 2 inserts the newly created offences under section 93FA into table 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. This will enable the prosecution to choose to have a matter dealt with either summarily or on indictment. That, in turn, allows less serious offences to be dealt with more efficiently in the Local Court. Schedule 3 contains amendments to the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. The Government enacted the Police Powers (Terrorism) Act 2002 following the Bali bombings to give police extraordinary powers to act in emergency situations when there were grounds to believe a terrorist act might be about to occur or had just occurred. Where the Act is triggered, by a very senior police officer, a range of powers of stop and search are available to police to attempt to frustrate a terrorist attack or rapidly close the net on terrorists who may be leaving the scene of an attack. While this Act has not been used, it has been tested in counter-terrorism exercises. Experience in working with the Act in exercises has shown that clarification is required to the trigger to activate the powers and also that some additional powers are needed.
Item [1] of schedule 3 amends the trigger at section 5 of the Act. This is the trigger for activating the powers in advance of a terrorist act. The Government's intention with this legislation is to give NSW Police the capacity to act when a senior and experienced officer, on the basis of the information available, and in light of that officer's experience, feels it is necessary to do so, in order to forestall a possible terrorist attack. In the real world of terrorist investigations, the information available may come from a number of different sources and may not be clear or precise. Police may be gathering surveillance information by watching suspects. Intelligence may be received from overseas agencies about international activities or connections. Information may be shared between other Australian security organisations. In the light of this combination of information, the activities of suspects may raise concerns amongst officers knowledgeable in terrorist methods that the suspects may be going to mount an attack of some kind in the near future. The timing of this activity may also be significant. It may be occurring just before the visit of a foreign VIP or a major public event.
The type of information may not be exact, for example police may not necessarily have an understanding of the form the terrorist threat might take whether it is a car bomb, a suicide bombing or a shooting. The concern the police have must be based on evidence. The trigger does create a genuine test. But that test must have a relatively low threshold given the consequences if police do not act. The bill amends the test to read that the senior police officer is "satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe there is the threat that a terrorist act may occur in the near future". The second limb of the existing test remains and must also be satisfied. It is that the senior police officer is "satisfied that the exercise of the powers will substantially assist in preventing the terrorist act". There must be a concern of an act occurring in the near future. This prevents the legislation from being triggered merely by reference to the general background threat that exists against this country. There must be some combination of factors suggesting that an act may be about to occur. The use of the term "threat", with its connotations of risk and uncertainty, makes it clear that the reasonable belief that there is the threat that a terrorist act may occur in the near future can be based on information that is itself uncertain or vague.
These powers are extreme, but so are the consequences of not acting when, as it were, the terrorists are in the home straight. The existing safeguards under the Act remain. The decision of senior police to activate the powers must be ratified by the Minister for Police. Similarly, when the powers are used, a report must be made by NSW Police to the Attorney General and the Minister for Police. The Act also has a built-in requirement that it be reviewed annually. The ongoing review of terrorism powers, and the experience gained from counter-terrorism exercises, also indicate that these additional amendments to the Act are needed.
Item [2] of schedule 3 creates a new section 14A, making clear that the Commissioner of Police or a senior delegate has the power to give reasonable directions to government bodies and agencies to facilitate the use of the counter-terrorism powers. Such a power may be used, for example, if there is a terrorist threat against Sydney's rail transport system. The size of this system and its complexity mean that if the powers under the Act to stop and search are activated, NSW Police will need assistance from the agencies controlling this infrastructure in order to effectively utilise the powers. In this situation, NSW Police may wish to shut down a part of the rail system. The bill will give the commissioner or a senior delegate the power to give reasonable directions to facilitate this kind of operation. Government agencies are authorised and required to comply.
Item [3] of schedule 3 creates new section 19A, which provides that where the powers are activated NSW Police may also cordon the designated targeted area or establish a cordon around or within a part of such an area. This would facilitate the exercise of the stop-and-search powers that exist, in particular by allowing police to set up roadblocks. It will help police control movement into and out of an area where it is suspected that terrorist acts may occur or have occurred. Schedule 4 to the bill contains an amendment to the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989, clarifying in section 4—"Definitions"—that an actual or imminent terrorist act may be classed as an emergency under this Act, permitting a range of emergency powers to be activated in consequence.
I refer, finally, to the cognate bill, the Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill. I am pleased to introduce that bill today as a cognate bill. It contains a series of tough new laws to protect the security of the Opera House. The Opera House has a unique place in our cultural life and history of Sydney. The iconic stature of the Opera House makes it particularly vulnerable as a target of potential terrorist and other criminal conduct. It is, therefore, necessary to take special steps to protect it. The Government has already allocated $13.6 million since April 2003 to be spent on improving security at the Opera House site. The new laws introduced today support these measures by ensuring that real deterrents put in place. Many of the prohibited acts are dangerous, and can put the lives of front-line workers, such as Opera House staff and police, at risk.
Many people have been concerned about the damage done to the Opera House sails last year. The new provisions will ensure that such damaging acts are punished appropriately. It will be a criminal offence to trespass on the Opera House, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. Trespass on the Opera House with intent to cause damage or to commit certain offences, or to seriously disrupt the operations of the Opera House, will be punishable by a maximum of seven years imprisonment. Intentional or reckless damage to the Opera House will attract a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. In addition, the bill makes minor amendments of an administrative nature. The availability of these offences will not prevent a court from requiring offenders to compensate the Opera House for criminal damage. Furthermore, NSW Police will not be prevented from charging a person with another offence that incurs a greater penalty. In summary, these proposed new offences are vital to the ongoing protection of what is almost certainly arguably these days Australia's most enduring symbol. I commend the bills to the House.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.20 p.m.]: The Opposition supports necessary measures to combat terrorism, and therefore does not oppose these bills. We are concerned about the need for urgency and the rather botched way in which the legislation was introduced in the other place. The shadow Attorney General in the other place raised questions about some of the provisions in the bills. The Opposition does not disagree with the urgent need to introduce legislation of this type, but we are surprised that the bills were introduced on the day the budget was handed down. One might speculate that the Government thought the budget would go down like a lead balloon, particularly following the fiasco of the mini-budget and the legislation to introduce the Treasurer's new taxes on property. That legislation was policy on the run and required amendments to it because of the haste in which it was prepared.
As I said, the shadow Attorney General in the other place raised a number of specific issues, in particular, the discrepancy in the Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill between the penalties for threatening to cause damage and actually causing damage to the Opera House. I will not go over all of that debate again. Other matters raised by the shadow Attorney General have not been adequately answered by the Government. These matters reflect the rushed manner in which the legislation was introduced. In his second reading speech the Attorney General gave a brief history of counter-terrorism reform. The States have joined with the Commonwealth in this endeavour, which has led the reform. The majority of matters relating to terrorism are now covered by Commonwealth terrorism legislation—I refer in particular to the Commonwealth criminal code.
The Attorney General referred to the Premier's announcement on 6 May that a counter-terrorism laws task force would be established comprising officials from the Attorney General's Department, NSW Police and emergency services agencies. That task force will monitor and review New South Wales laws and make recommendations for legislative amendments. As we know, amendments were made in early June, with the creation of a presumption against bail for persons charged with terrorism offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The Opposition supported that legislation.
The Attorney General went on to say that a number of the amendments in this bill arose from that review. As far as that goes, that is fine. However, when faced with the shadow Attorney General's criticisms, the Attorney General in reply acknowledged some of the concerns raised. Of particular concern was the case of the offender who exploded a 97-kilogram fertiliser bomb in a paddock and the perceived inadequacy of the penalty imposed; that is, a fine, a suspended sentence and community service. The Attorney General then stated:
… it is that circumstance that led the Government to review existing provisions under the Crimes Act, and it introduced the kind of legislation we have before us.
Obviously the Attorney General was rattled by some of the problems with this legislation and did not have an adequate explanation for rushing it through on budget day. We suspect that it was a filler in case the budget was the damp wimp it became. It is unfortunate that this bill was introduced in that way and that it was not properly considered to avoid glaring drafting problems, such as those in the provisions dealing with the Opera House penalties. The Opposition supports bills of this nature dealing with terrorism issues and commends the bills to the House.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.26 p.m.]: The Christian Democrats are pleased to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill and the cognate bill, the Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill. The main purpose of the legislation is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 and other legislation in respect of powers, offences and penalties that may relate to terrorist activity. The Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill is designed to provide better protection of the Opera House and will be debated cognately. Similar legislation has been introduced over the past few years.
The Christian Democrats are pleased that the Government has authorised simulated terrorist attacks involving emergency service agencies and NSW Police. It is important that those organisations learn how to work together and iron out any problems that might arise in the event of a real attack. We pray to God that does not happen. This legislation reflects a realistic view of the world. Because militant Islamic terrorist groups have made threats against Australia, and continue to do so, we must be prepared. Obviously, the best preparation is to deter attack through the work of efficient intelligence services that monitor the situation and through strong community support. The public should be encouraged to co-operate with law enforcement agencies and to provide information.
I will not go through the provisions in the legislation, which primarily increase or clarify penalties to make them better reflect the seriousness of the relevant offences. For example, section 200 is amended to increase the maximum penalty for the possession of explosives with the intention of maliciously destroying or damaging property from imprisonment for three years to imprisonment for seven years. As we have seen with regard to other legislation, the outcome depends on whether judges apply the maximum or minimum penalty. It is one thing for us to impose higher penalties, but it is another for the judicial system to apply them. We hope that through this legislation the judicial system will take the lead and do so.
I have raised in this House on at least two occasions the concern that fertiliser could be used as an explosive. I am aware that discussions have been held with the Commonwealth to try to develop a system to prevent that occurring. I made the suggestion that primary producers be the only people allowed to purchase fertiliser, and that they should be required to hold a permit. Of course, terrorist groups can always forge documents and make false claims, but the permit requirement might reduce the use of fertiliser as an explosive. Recently I read a report that a Russian company has developed a new process of separating the explosive component from fertilisers to make them completely explosion-proof. I understand that the company will now promote the sale of the new fertiliser around the world. I assume that because the company discovered the technique, it will probably charge more for the fertiliser. I hope that is not the case, and that the fertiliser will be able to be used by our farmers.
We also support the Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill. I almost feel that it is a Fred Nile bill, because I was the first person to raise in the Parliament the possibility of a terrorist attack on the Opera House. My suggestion, regrettably, was greeted with ridicule by some members of this House. At that time I said that I hoped those members would not come to rue their ridicule at some future date. I asked what would happen if—as has happened in the Middle East—six people, either male or female, wearing the black chador, approached the Opera House. I asked how security officers or police would handle such a situation involving cultural issues. I believed, and still believe, that it was a genuine concern to be considered by the authorities. I assume there is now a protocol in place to deal with such a situation.
A similar thing happened with respect to banks. Bank robberies were carried out by people wearing motorcycle helmets to conceal their identity. The wearing of motorcycle helmets into banks and other places where robberies often take place has now been banned. I believe people are not permitted to wear them into petrol stations; indeed, there are signs on the door to that effect. In the past that might have appeared to be an overreaction, but these days it seems to be a sensible precaution.
I believe that the authorities need to take similar precautions with regard to potential terrorist attacks on the Opera House. It is an icon of Australia, and we know that terrorist groups focus on targets that can cause the greatest damage—not just economic damage but cultural damage—to the prestige of that nation. That is the reason the twin towers were attacked. After those attacks it was found that large colour posters showing the twin towers were displayed in many places where terrorists carry out their day-to-day activities, such as coffee shops and other social places. The twin towers were displayed in that fashion not as something to be admired, but as something that annoyed the terrorists: a sign of American economic might and power. That is why the twin towers were selected for a terrorist attack.
I hope and pray, as I am sure everyone does, that no-one will see the Opera House as a potential terrorist target in future. This is necessary legislation. Since April 2003 the Government has allocated $13.6 million to improve security at the Opera House site. As others have said, particularly in the media, one wonders what the unarmed security personnel who patrol the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge would do if they were confronted by a terrorist. I do not believe they could do anything, except run, and, if they have a mobile phone, try to issue a warning. Unlike their counterparts in other countries, those security personnel are not equipped to deal with such a situation. Regrettably, it means that people who are intended to stop an armed terrorist must be armed. One can hardly raise one's finger and tell them to stop. I believe that the use of unarmed security personnel gives us false security; I do not think it will work. I urge the Government to give more thought to upgrading security on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. We support the bills.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.35 p.m.]: The reason we have such a fear of terrorism is that we have a very bad foreign policy. We have basically gone across the world and hit people who have never hit us, and thus they are retaliating in the form in which they are able to retaliate, that is, terrorism. We are therefore rearranging our society, at vast cost, to cope with the threat that I believe John Howard has created. If, and when, there is terrorism in this country, I believe it will be John Howard's fault. It is better that I say it now, because afterwards it will seem crass and unpatriotic to say what I think is blindingly obvious. The bill provides brief definitions of explosions, noxious substances, and so on, and increases the penalties for the possession and use of those substances. Presumably, without such provisions a person who tried to commit a nasty act, but did not succeed, would not be put away for very long.
I note that the Opera House has been recognised. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile waxed lyrical about its iconic status, comparing it to the twin towers in New York's World Trade Center. Of course, a terrorist attack on the Opera House would be most unfortunate. The Opera House spent a fortune on redundancy packages for its security guards, and it subsequently replaced them all. I do not know why it did that. The Opera House has pop-up bollards. I believe it has popped up a bollard underneath a fire engine. Because the building has a touch-screen system, it does not have the ability to pop up the bollards.
Under the bill, a person who enters or remains in any part of the Opera House as a trespasser will be guilty of an offence and face a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or imprisonment for two years, or both. Many years ago when I attempted to hand out leaflets at the Opera House in a demonstration against Benson and Hedges, I was told to move on. Understandably, I wanted to continue to hand out the leaflets until the evening session. I delayed moving on, in order to get the leaflets out before the police arrived. It was a successful protest against Benson and Hedges, which was trying to sponsor ballet to draw attention away from the fact that it was killing everybody with its cigarettes. I was defined as a criminal because I was pointing out that fact to patrons who were about to attend the Opera House. Under the bill, if the magistrate had a rush of blood to his or her head I would go to gaol for two years.
The people who wrote "No War" on the Opera House—a message that was designed to bring Australians to their senses and draw attention to how easy it is to get to the Opera House sails—had to pay a huge amount of money to have the message removed and were placed on periodic detention for a very long time. Under the bill, the maximum penalty on indictment for such an offence is five years imprisonment. In other words, those people would now receive an even heavier penalty. I acknowledge that people who commit acts of war against our country because of its bad foreign policy must be dealt with appropriately, but I am concerned about some of the ridiculous offences that are applied to those who make perfectly valid statements. People's civil liberties are placed at risk when a country needlessly goes into war mode.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.39 p.m.]: The Greens oppose this bill. We do not oppose constructive measures to address terrorism, but this bill is not such a measure. Unfortunately, this bill is typical Carr Government window-dressing. It plays to the talkback crowd, but really adds nothing substantial to the fight against terrorism. It simply jacks up penalties and attacks civil liberties, as though this will make any difference to a determined terrorist. Instead of countering terrorism, this bill merely threatens to punish innocent people, or to crack down on legitimate protest and dissent. Does the Government seriously believe that increasing the length of a prison sentence will deter a terrorist? That is why I say this bill is about cracking down on legitimate protest and dissent and innocent people.
If terrorists plan to attack the Opera House, they will not read the statute book first to figure out how long they might spend in gaol afterwards. Does the Government think that terrorists care whether a sentence is six months or 60 years? These gaol terms are random, they are meaningless, and they do not act as a deterrent. They do not make our society safer. This is a bill by a Government that is bereft of ideas as to how to fight terrorism.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: What do you say it should do?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I hope the Minister will listen. Sadly, this is symptomatic of governments that use excessive force and misplaced laws to fight terrorism. Sending in the troops does not work; we are seeing that at the moment. Building missile shields does not work. All the conventional techniques do not work. The arms race, proxy wars and spy games of the twentieth century are not the solution. The Carr Government's old law and order drum is also not the solution. Terrorism, like all crimes, can be fought only by engaging with its root causes. Instead of an arms race, Australia should be supporting social and economic development in countries such as Indonesia and the Philippines. Instead of reining in civil liberties and jacking up gaol terms, the Carr Government should be promoting social and economic progress and cohesion within our community.
[Interruption]
I acknowledge the interjection from the member Catherine Cusack that we do. Tragically, our budget under successive Federal governments—but particularly under the Federal Coalition Government—is becoming more and more skewed to military aid, and more and more development aid is going to commercial interests. So it is a way to give Australian companies a boost in those countries, not to provide jobs, education and the programs that many of those countries need assistance with. Increasing prison sentences is old politics. It is an outdated response to a new problem. Curtailing civil liberties is becoming increasingly popular with governments that attempt to play the populist game.
We fought hard over the past century to entrench rights and freedoms in this country. Many Labor members have been part of those campaigns. This bill fits into the pattern of recent government activity that has been introduced under the cloak of fighting terrorism. Across the Western world too many governments are curbing the right to protest, the right to silence, the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy and the right to free thought. They are the themes of so much of the legislation that comes before this House and, I say again, they are not about making our society safer. To go down this path is to undo a pillar of democratic society; it is to hand a victory to those who would oppose Western democracy.
These abuses of rights and freedoms further alienate those who may be tempted by the terrorists' doctrines. That is what the terrorists want, and governments are playing into their hands. When people in our society are demonised it allows terrorists to, in turn, demonise our society. In addition to being dangerous and irrelevant, this bill is sometimes silly in some of its formulations. But maybe, rather than silly, there is a clear intent. I am referring to the words "imminent threat". Those words have now been altered to read "threats in the near future". What does that mean? What will it achieve? Our concern is that it is a way to extend the time period over which these measures can be used. So again, in what seems to be just an odd word change, there is a clear intent to throw a wider net.
The Greens oppose this bill because we oppose these pointless legislative stunts. Bills such as this are rushed through Parliament to give people the idea that something is being done. There will be chats by the Minister and the Premier with some of the shock jocks, and they will all go away feeling very good about themselves. But we do not want the community to be fooled: nothing constructive is being done.
Before I finish I again congratulate Dave Burgess and Will Saunders, the two courageous young men who took the "No War" message to the world via the Opera House. They have paid dearly for undertaking a legitimate act of political protest. Under this new bill they would have paid even more dearly. Gaol is not an appropriate punishment for political activism. There are members in this House who in the past have taken part in Vietnam war protests, in green bans, and even these days they sometimes take part in pickets. Do those members think that these actions warrant gaol terms? Should protesters be gaoled for up to seven years simply for committing acts of civil disobedience? The Greens would like to hear from some of those people from the Labor left.
[Interruption]
The vandalism is the war that this Government supported; that is a huge crime. How do they feel about this silencing of activism?
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Would you be happy if they painted it on all the public schools?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: They did not paint it on a public school.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: What if they did?
Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is not where you have protests.
The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is public property.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Minister knows how it works, so it is a very silly interjection. How does the Labor left feel about this constant banging of the law and order drum? They have the opportunity with this bill to get up and say how ridiculous it is, and we know that it will not damage them in caucus. It is a long time since we have seen Labor members stand up in this House and criticise their own Government's legislation. Ann Symonds, a former member of this place, did this courageously years ago, and I congratulate the member Jan Burnswoods on her decision last night to speak out in favour of the call for corporate manslaughter legislation and on her criticism of the Minister for Industrial Relations for the way he is handling this matter. So there have been examples in recent times. It is a pity there are not more.
There is a long history of activism and civil disobedience in this country. It goes back to the Eureka Stockade and to those Sydneysiders who occupied houses that were threatened with demolition or the occupants with eviction during the Depression. It runs through the green bans, the Vietnam protests and the anti-nuclear marches of the 1980s, the paddlers for peace and the Peace Squadron, and the student demonstrations of the 1990s. This tradition of protest and dissent lives on, and Dave Burgess and Will Saunders are now a proud part of that tradition. This tradition, and the social progress it delivers, is celebrated and lauded by later generations. Although this legislation is about to pass, I am confident that the courage of protesters and the tradition of protest will continue.
But the government of the day always stands in its way. Labor or Liberal, those in power will always seek to denigrate and deny protest as a legitimate form of political expression. It is a pity that they do not recognise that protests are the driver of social change, much more than any of the clever ideas that come out of this place once in a blue moon. The Greens celebrate that tradition, and we are proud to be part of it. We believe it is possible to engage in the parliamentary process, yet at the same time continue to express ourselves through campaigns and protests outside this place. To vote against this bill is not to condone or allow terrorism, because this bill is more about pleasing the Daily Telegraph than it is about deterring terrorists.
To vote against the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill is to reject the Carr Government's spin and its knee-jerk and reactionary response to terrorism. And to vote against the Sydney Opera House Trust Amendment Bill is to take a stand in support of civil liberties. It is a vote in support of the right to use civil disobedience as a form of protest when governments have stopped listening. That is what the Greens support and will continue to support.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [5.50 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I commend the bills to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages.