Peter Garrett MP
Member for Kingsford Smith
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts

[Ventnor House is a heritage building in Avoca Street, Randwick, and is being restored to its original condition. Built in 1872, it is one of Randwick’s architectural treasures.]

I want to briefly address a matter of real consequence which I know is troubling many in the community.

The Howard government since taking control of the Senate has railroaded legislation through Parliament, for example with the sale of Telstra, without allowing adequate opportunity to scrutinise or debate new laws.

That a political party can hold the parliament and the Australian people in such contempt is of huge concern.

Now our bedrock rights to free speech, to due process under the law, to confidence that the separation of the judiciary from the executive will stand against the arbitrary exercise of power are all in danger of being swept away by this government.

Under the Anti Terrorism Bill 2005 the Howard Government proposes to abandon our democratic and legal inheritance and in effect bring about conditions that greatly constrict our democratic way of life.

Serious doubts have been raised about the proposed laws’ constitutionality and there has been some debate on that aspect.

That they clearly breach the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, despite the Prime Ministers undertaking to the states they wouldn’t, is wrong.

But the spotlight should also be on the basic moral and social outrages of the proposals.

Namely the removal of fundamental freedoms, liberties and rights of innocent people. The very rights terrorists are intent on damaging are being removed by this government.

In so doing we lose a part of our democracy, they win a portion of their battle.

It is not enough to say, as some do, that if you have done nothing wrong and are not involved in any terrorism, then you can't be harmed by these laws. You can be.

A citizen in my electorate of Kingsford Smith already has been mistaken for someone involved in terrorism.

Under the proposed laws we would have no knowledge of cases of this kind. And if these things happen – innocent people are taken away – you won't know about it – journalists, newspapers, TV stations won't be able to report it.

Your life, the life of your family, can be ruined. You can disappear, and not be able to tell anyone. And afterwards, if you manage to prove your innocence, there is horribly inadequate judicial review and the heavy financial and personal burden of seeking redress.

You can disappear, even if you haven't done anything wrong and are actually proven innocent of any allegations. Is this the kind of Australia we want for ourselves, for our children?

As I understand it, the "final" draft of the bill sent out last night to State Governments still contains the sedition clauses, which are deeply troubling.

This so-called “final” bill has not been seen by the media, the legal profession and the public. It should be released immediately for proper public scrutiny and for a decent period of time before being debated in Parliament.

Sedition is generally considered an ancient offence and legal concept. There have been very few prosecutions this century, and none for decades, under the Crimes Act (where it sits now).

This bill is a dog’s breakfast in relation to sedition which is entirely the province of the Commonwealth government. It actually makes harsher, and more wide-ranging, the existing sedition laws in this country by effectively altering the legal definition of sedition which should properly be contained to applying to the promotion of change by violent means.

Seditious intention is now defined as including “(3) (c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law by the Commonwealth.” This appears to contradict the ASIO Act Section 17a which, and I’m paraphrasing, prohibits ASIO from investigating legitimate political dissent.

This definition would presumably include civil disobedience of the kind practiced by Mahatma Gandhi or by many Australians during the time of the Vietnam War, or in opposition to the Jabiluka uranium mine.

As Labor spokesman for the Arts I have sought legal opinion from senior counsel on the likely impact of the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 on the free expression of opinion, especially in relation to creative and artistic expression. [click on link below to read this opinion]

The opinion states,” Australians involved in the artistic and creative fields are particularly vulnerable to the risk of prosecution under the regime to be introduced by this Bill.”

The opinion points out that the bill appears to create a new category of conduct under the sedition clauses namely the ”urging” of another person to do various things. The lack of definition of the term means it could include artistic expression.

Those involved in the David Hare play, “Stuff Happens”, for instance, could possibly be prosecuted. Possibly perhaps, I hear the government say, but almost certainly not. Well that is not good enough. There should not even be a possibility of prosecution. And if these clauses will never be used, why have them?

And the risk of being accused of breaking this law would arise, perhaps more acutely, with, for example:

• "a play, or film, or TV programme depicting in a sympathetic or non hostile way the policies …of the Iraqi insurgents, or of al-Quaida, or of other groups which may from time to time be at war with or engaged in armed hostilities with Australia
• a newspaper or magazine article which took a similar non critical or explanatory approach, even if based of material that was accurate
• any imaginative/creative work which repeated or included seditious views expressed by others"

It is in the hands of the Attorney General to decide if an artist should be prosecuted, which will be cold comfort to those who’ve witnessed the failure of Mr Ruddock to protect core principles of our legal system.

How much closer do we want to creep towards a state of oppression? And the supposed defence of acting "in good faith" would only apply in very limited circumstances, so we can't rely on that to be able to defend our freedom of expression.

John Howard and his government have done their normal trick. The Prime Minister throws in a ridiculous ambit claim, or has an extreme position, or includes a "straw man" like the “shoot to kill” provisions then removes it or alters it slightly and paints himself and his changed position as reasonable.

This law is not reasonable. It has major implications for civil liberties, freedom of speech and expression -- and these ridiculous new “sedition" elements, with their present wording, will do nothing to counter the threat of terrorism, and much to dampen legitimate, creative expression in our country.

Too many people are scared of speaking out, lest they be accused of being soft on terrorism, or worse.

I'm not soft on terrorism. I am hard on preserving hard-won individual freedoms and rights. Yes it may be the case that additional counter-terrorism laws are needed but these proposals are over the top in their current form.

Media enquiries: Kate Pasterfield