McCully Murray: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
McCully Murray: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12798] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I take the opportunity in the Committee at this stage to put on record my support for Part 1 of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee when it gave consideration to this particular measure and prior to that I was a member of the select committee when it concluded the review of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002—in particular the sections that are being amended by Part 1 of this bill. As a result of that initial select committee process I became concerned about the workability of the arrangements in the original bill and the amendments contained in Part 1 of this measure will give effect to some important changes that I will touch on briefly. 
At the heart of this measure at the heart of this part in fact is a difference of view—and I acknowledge that it is a genuine difference of view—about how we deal with the threat of terrorism. Some like myself and I am pleased to say some like members of the Government see the threat of terrorism as something that is sufficiently serious and sufficiently difficult and complex to deal with that it cannot be dealt with by way of the normal processes of the court or by having the standard of proof required before any action can be taken by the agencies of State. It is my view that terrorism in its various guises can be dealt with only by vesting in some authority the ability to arrive subjectively at judgments based on material placed before that authority—material that is of itself unlikely to be admissible in court because of the consequences for intelligence agencies both here and abroad. 
I take the view that we have to trust some designated officer—and in this case we are talking about the Prime Minister of the country who is the most senior elected official in the land—who will have to make that subjective judgment as to whether a particular group on the basis of the material before him or her should have certain sanctions taken against it. Those sanctions will obviously have the impact of intruding upon the group’s civil liberties. That is not a step that any Parliament should take lightly but I do not think that I need to offer too many pieces of evidence for members to be convinced that there is a genuine threat of terrorism around the world and that every country in its own way has to do something to combat that threat. So I think that what is done in Part 1 of this measure—which effectively is to take away from the courts a role in proceedings that were never going to be suitable for our judicial situation and to place that decision-making capability in the hands of the highest elected official in our country—is the appropriate step for Parliament to take. 
I say to Dr Sharples and to others who have concerns about recent matters that it is not a power we should vest lightly in any authority and that where there is any evidence that those powers—indeed extraordinary powers in this legislation—are misused in any shape or form this Parliament and I hope its executive branch will come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone who steps across the line. As a member of this Parliament I certainly say to Dr Sharples and others that I presume that the authorities will use these powers wisely in all circumstances but if there is any evidence to the contrary I will certainly be quick out of the blocks to ensure there is some accountability. I know that other members feel the same. 
I support Part 1 vesting as it does considerable authority in the hands of the Prime Minister who of course is briefed by the Security Intelligence Service on a regular basis and I urge other members to lend their support to it as well. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 158 in the name of Keith Locke to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.