Terrorism Book Controversy Part 5

In the Federal Court on June 14th 2007 the NSW Council for Civil Liberties failed in their case against the Classification Review Board. The books Join the Caravan and Defence of the Muslim Lands remain banned in Australia.

***

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
14th June 2007 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Federal Court decision – NSW Council for Civil Liberties v Classification Review Board 

The Classification Review Board notes with the interest the judgement handed down today by the Federal Court about an application lodged by New South Wales Civil Liberties Incorporated in relation to two books, ‘Join the Caravan’ and ‘Defence of the Muslim Lands’. 

In mid 2006, the Classification Review Board unanimously classified these books ‘Refused Classification’. 

Classification Review Board Convenor, Ms Maureen Shelley said, “I am pleased that the decision of the Classification Review Board withstood the scrutiny of the Federal Court, in that the Court dismissed the application. Members of the Classification Review Board are keen to read the reasons for decision. It isn’t often that the Review Board is given guidance by the Courts on interpretation of the Classification Act and such case law can only assist the Review Board in its deliberations”.

 ‘Refused Classification’ means that the two books ‘Join the Caravan’ and ‘Defence of the Muslim Lands’ by Sheikh Abdullah Azzam cannot be legally sold, hired or advertised in Australia. 

***

The Attorney General
Philip Ruddock MP
Media Release 114/2007

19 June 2007
ATTORNEY-GENERAL ACTS ON MATERIAL ADVOCATING TERRORISM
Classification laws will soon be better able to deal with material that encourages people to commit terrorist acts, Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today.

Following public consultation through a discussion paper on material that advocates terrorist acts, Mr Ruddock has sought State and Territory Censorship Ministers’ agreement to amend the National Classification Code and guidelines.

“The proposal would enable the Classification Board to refuse classification for publications, films and computer games that advocate terrorist acts, meaning they would not be available lawfully in Australia,” Mr Ruddock said.

“The proposed amendments take into account concerns expressed in public submissions to the Discussion Paper’s proposal.

“For abundant caution, I have enhanced the proposal to ensure the new provisions operate effectively against unacceptable material while not impinging on freedom of speech or legitimate mainstream popular entertainment,” Mr Ruddock said.

Mr Ruddock said that he was hopeful that his State and Territory colleagues would agree to the amendments at the Censorship Ministers meeting in July.

“This is a very important issue and I am not prepared to wait indefinitely for that agreement,” Mr Ruddock said.

“To ensure the Commonwealth is not causing any delay, I will introduce legislation in the Australian Parliament this week.

“If States and Territories do not agree in July and frustrate the process, the Australian Government will be in a position to ensure that material that advocates terrorist acts is not available in Australia,” Mr Ruddock said.

***

SENATOR JOE LUDWIG 
SHADOW ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Media Release
21 June 2007

Parliament must get the balance right on Censorship changes

Labor broadly supports moves to better deal with material that advocates terrosism, the Shadow Attorney-General, Joe Ludwig, said today. 

But it will be critical for the Federal Parliament to closely scrutinise the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 to ensure we get the balance right, so we can act against unacceptable material but not inadvertently compromise free speech. 

As the Bill has been referred to committee the Attorney now has the chance to engage constructively with the States and to stop playing games with this matter of community concern. The Federal Parliament will also have the capacity to consider any results of the forthcoming July meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. 

This problem has been evident for at least 2 years and it had taken Mr Ruddock far too long to act. Now the Attorney seeks to grandstand and play the bully. 

Since 2005 there have been several instances where so called "hate" material and material containing incitement to extreme violence and terrorism have been exposed by the media. Publications, DVDs and the like where extremists are inciting hate and pushing extremist views to encourage violence are unacceptable. 

The real problem is the Howard Government's hand-picked classification boards - which are supposed to reflect Australia's community standards - consider that violent jihad and racial abuse of Jews is acceptable material for young Australian Muslim children of primary school age. 

Changing the law will not be of any assistance while the Howard Government's hand picked board refuses to apply it. 

***

Classification Review Board 
Annual Report 2006-2007 

Complaints 
In response to an application from the Attorney-General, the Review Board convened over the end of the previous reporting period and the beginning of the current reporting period to review the classification of eight Islamic books and a DVD. After the review, two complaints were received about the Review Board's RC decisions for two of the books, entitled Defence of the Muslim Lands and Join the Caravan. The Review Board classified the other six books 'Unrestricted' and the DVD, PG. Two letters were subsequently received asking the Review Board to also refuse classification to one of those books, Jihad in the Qu'ran and Sunnah.

***

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007
Stage First Reading
Private No
Name Attorney-General portfolio
Bill number 07129
Date 21 June, 2007
Database Bills
Source House

2004-2005-2006-2007

The Parliament of the
Commonwealth of Australia
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Presented and read a first time

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007
No. , 2007
(Attorney-General)

A Bill for an Act to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and for related purposes

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 No. , 2007

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 No. , 2007
Contents
1 Short title 1
2 Commencement 1
3 Schedule(s) 2
Schedule 1—Amendments 3
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 3
Amendments Schedule 1

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 No. , 2007

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 No. , 2007

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 No. , 2007
A Bill for an Act to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and for related purposes
The Parliament of Australia enacts:
1 Short title
This Act may be cited as the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Act 2007.
2 Commencement
This Act commences on the day after it receives the Royal Assent.
3 Schedule(s)
Each Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.

Schedule 1—Amendments

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
1 Section 5 (definition of submittable publication)
After “regard to”, insert “section 9A or to”.
2 Section 9
Omit “Publications,”, substitute “Subject to section 9A, publications,”.
3 After section 9
Insert:
9A Refused Classification for publications, films or computer games that advocate terrorist acts
(1) A publication, film or computer game that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be classified RC.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), for the purposes of this section, a publication, film or computer game advocates the doing of a terrorist act if:
(a) it directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act; or
(b) it directly or indirectly provides instruction on the doing of a terrorist act; or
(c) it directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person might suffer) to engage in a terrorist act.
(3) A publication, film or computer game does not advocate the doing of a terrorist act if it depicts or describes a terrorist act, but the depiction or description could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or satire.
(4) In this section:
terrorist act has the meaning given by section 100.1 of the Criminal Code (no matter where the action occurs, the threat of action is made or the action, if carried out, would occur).
Note: The definition of terrorist act in that section covers actions or threats of actions.
4 Application
The amendments made by items 2 and 3 apply in relation to decisions made by the Board or Review Board on or after the commencement of this item.

***

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: First Reading
Date 21 June, 2007
Database House Hansard
Page 3
Proof Yes
Source House
Stage First Reading
Type Procedural text
Context Bills
Main Committee No

First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.

Bill read a first time.

***

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 21 June, 2007
Database House Hansard
Speaker Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP, Government)
Page 3
Proof Yes
Source House
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bills
Main Committee No

Second Reading
Speech
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Attorney-General) (9.22 a.m.)—I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 improves the ability of our laws to prevent the circulation of material which advocates the doing of terrorist acts.

This is a serious issue. Currently there is too much uncertainty around whether the existing classification laws adequately capture such material. This material should not be legally available in Australia.

The bill introduces new provisions to the classification act, which will expressly require that publications, films or computer games that advocate the doing of a terrorist act must be classified as ‘refused classification’.

I would prefer to see these provisions in the National Classification Code and guidelines, not in the classification act, but that requires the states’ and territories’ agreement.

As the classification scheme is a cooperative national scheme, the state and territory censorship ministers and I must agree to the provisions of the code and guidelines.

I first sought state and territory agreement to changes to classification laws in July 2006. To date, they have been reluctant to respond positively to my proposals. I am not prepared to wait indefinitely to address this problem.

Following public consultation on a discussion paper, I recently wrote to censorship ministers seeking their agreement to amend the code and guidelines to require the Classification Board to refuse classification of material that advocates terrorist acts.

I am hopeful that my state and territory colleagues will agree to these amendments at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting in July. If they do, the amendments in this bill will not be needed. But, I might say, any evidence of bona fides is hard to find. When officers are instructed not to agree to the proposals, it is unlikely that an agreed set of proposals would be submitted to the ministers’ meeting in July. Ministers would be very unlikely in a meeting to conclude that agreement and would again refer it off to officers. That has been the standard practice.

If states and territories do not agree in July, we must be in a position to ensure that material that advocates the doing of terrorist acts is not legally available in Australia. This bill ensures that this can be done expeditiously through an amendment to the classification act.

The bill introduces the same provisions as the proposed amendments to the code and guidelines. It requires the Classification Board to refuse classification of material that advocates terrorist acts. The provisions take into account submissions received following public consultation on the discussion paper. The submissions were carefully considered and, consequently, the proposal has been refined, so that the new provisions will operate effectively against unacceptable material but will not impinge on freedom of speech or mainstream popular culture.

The requirement in this bill for material to be classified as ‘refused classification’ is not intended to restrict the genuine and legitimate exercise of freedom of speech or to prevent filmmakers, authors or publishers from dealing with contentious subject matter in an informative, educational, entertaining, ironical or controversial way.

As the bill clearly sets out, where the treatment of a terrorist act could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or satire, it is not to be refused classification.

This protects material such as investigative journalists’ work, historical analyses, material that might appear to glorify war or battle (including ‘factional’ or fictional accounts of war, insurgency or resistance), satirical pieces, and popular culture movies.

On the other hand, material which goes further and advocates the doing of terrorist acts—for example, by directly praising terrorist acts in circumstances where this runs the risk of inspiring someone to commit a terrorist act—would and should be required to be classified ‘refused classification’.

Striking the right balance is important. Freedom of expression is an important part of our society’s values. However, there is another right which must be protected—the right to be protected from the pernicious influence of material that advocates the naive and impressionable to go out and commit terrorist acts against other human beings.

The bill adopts the meanings of ‘advocate’ and ‘terrorist acts’ from the Criminal Code Act 1995 by adaptation of language or direct reference. It is intended that the meanings of these terms in the classification act remain consistent with their meaning in the Criminal Code.

‘Advocate’ covers direct or indirect advocacy, in the form of counselling, urging or providing instruction on the doing of a terrorist act. It also covers direct praise of a terrorist act where there is a risk that such praise might lead a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment) to engage in a terrorist act.

However, the advocacy would need to be about doing a terrorist act, not merely expressing generalised support of a cause.

The term ‘terrorist act’ is given the same meaning as in section 100.1 of the Criminal Code. Any amendments made to that section will automatically apply to the definition of ‘terrorist act’ for the purposes of the classification act.

‘Terrorist act’ is tightly defined. The action or threat must be made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and coercing or intimidating an Australian or foreign government or the public. It includes actions or threats involving serious harm to people, damage to property, endangerment of life, serious risk to the public’s health or safety, or seriously interfering with an electronic system including telecommunications, financial and essential government services systems, essential public utilities and transport providers.

Action which is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action, not intended to cause serious harm, death, endangerment of life, or serious risk to the health or safety of the public, is expressly excluded from being a ‘terrorist act’.

This bill will improve the ability of our laws to prevent the circulation of material which advocates the doing of terrorist acts. Classification laws need to be better able to ensure that such material is not available in Australia.

Whether that happens through amendments to the National Classification Code and guidelines with the agreement of the states and territories or through amendments to the classification act that I introduce today is not yet clear. But let me make it clear to those who may want to read these remarks: this bill will not proceed if the Classification Code is amended by agreement with the states and territories in a satisfactory way. Its introduction now is to ensure that we can deal with these matters in an appropriate time frame. In other words, it is a bill proposed for more abundant caution. I might say to the states and territories that I would expect that if they do not agree, this bill would secure passage through both houses of parliament, given the comments of the opposition about what they allege has been delay on my part in proceeding with these matters. Let me make it very clear: I have been pressing the states and territories to deal with this issue for more than 12 months, and I think they have had more than enough time to come to an agreement. I suspect their behaviour has been designed to frustrate these amendments, and that is why this bill is important in terms of ensuring that we have sufficient options to be able to deal with this issue in an appropriate time frame. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Snowdon) adjourned.

***

Interview: Philip Ruddock
July 8, 2007
Reporter : Laurie Oakes
Sunday Program

LAURIE OAKES: Just before Parliament rose for the winter recess you snuck some legislation into the house that would make it an offence to produce or disseminate material, books, films, DVDs, computer games advocating terrorism. Now why wasn't that voted on before the house rose?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well the bill was introduced and it's been left on the table, one, so that the Opposition and Senate committees can have their examination of it but also because I'm trying to work with the states. The classification scheme is a combined scheme in which we require usually the states and the Commonwealth to agree on changes that should be made to the classification code. Now in 2006 I asked the states to look at the issue of advocacy of terrorism acts and it has been on the agenda all that time and I've had a job keeping it on the agenda because until the Sheik Fa-Mahomoud's DVDs were given a classification which was 'parental guidance required' which I think is quite extraordinary in relation to a product of that type, it was quite clear that the law did not require the classifiers to look at the advocacy issue in a way which would enable a DVD of that type to be effectively prescribed and not available to the Australian community. Now we have a meeting of attorneys in July. I hope that they will agree, particularly given the advocacy of people like the Premier of New South Wales and some of the attorneys that Sheik Fa-Mahomoud's material ought to be looked at critically and that they will support amendments to the classification code which is the way in which we would normally deal with these issues. But if they don't, if they don't , I've made it very clear that the Commonwealth will nevertheless proceed to deal with it by amendment to the Commonwealth legislation.

***

David Marr wrote this excellent opinion piece regarding the likely outcome of Ruddock's plans.

Madness in the tightening of our censorship laws. SMH 24.07.07

....the Office of Film and Literature Classification will soon be hunting for men and women with the amazing ability to pick the books, films, symphonies, news broadcasts, sitcoms and sermons that "might lead a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment) to engage in a terrorist act".

Philip Ruddock wants all such works banned. We are not defenceless now. For years this country has suppressed any works that "promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence" but the Attorney-General fears that formula is too slack. With his lawyer's mind he sees the risk of insidious material slipping through the net to inspire the naive and impressionable.

It's over a year since he first tried to persuade the state and territory attorneys-general to accept this new rule banning "advocacy" of terrorism. They jacked up, alarmed by the sweeping powers he wanted to give the censors.

When the attorneys meet again in Hobart at the end of this week, Ruddock will once more be insisting his new rule be adopted by the states and territories. If they don't - and several states are still holding out - he has a bill ready and waiting to override the nation's supposedly co-operative censorship arrangements. "I am not prepared," Ruddock told Parliament in June, "to wait indefinitely to address this problem."

But what is the problem, asked the Australian Press Council, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Law Council of Australia in submissions to Ruddock's department over the past few months? Promoting terrorism is already banned, so why do we need new rules to suppress urging, advocating and praising?

These serious folk don't understand. The Government's "problem" is to find a way to satisfy tabloid demands for banning distasteful Islamic texts. The latest cries of outrage followed the brief appearance of Sheik Feiz Mohammed, a former Sydney boxer and Medina-trained preacher, in a British TV documentary in January. Two electric minutes taken from two unpleasant hours of his preaching provoked Australian politicians and community leaders to condemn his Death Series DVDs sight unseen.

Police took a look and weren't interested. The Office of Film and Literature Classification then brought to bear considerations ignored by the press and politicians: the context, purpose and intended audience for the DVDs plus the knowledge that other religions have their unhappy and not-dissimilar teachings. The assessors declared the material suitable for over-15s, so long as the DVDs were clearly stamped "Religious Themes".

Ruddock might have appealed against the decision. Instead, he whipped up attacks on the classifier and renewed demands the states and territories come to the party on new rules that would, for the first time, ban material for the impact it might have on the mentally impaired.

"This is a significant departure from current practice," said Maureen Shelley, convener of the nation's high court of censorship, the Classification Review Board. In her submissions, Shelley pointed out that the test has always been the impact on "reasonable adults" and declared it "difficult to imagine a circumstance where praise of a terrorist act" would not fall foul of Ruddock's rule.

The Law Council of Australia worries about a rule so sweeping it would operate whenever there's "a" risk that "a" person might go haywire. "At the very least … the definitions should be amended to require a substantial risk that the praise might lead someone to engage in terrorism."

The Press Council wonders where the new rule would leave commentators praising the African National Congress or barracking for the Irish Republican Army.

Victoria's Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, accused Ruddock yesterday of "trying to bully the states and territories into accepting laws he hasn't even demonstrated we need. Any changes to censorship laws need to be very carefully considered and drafted. There is a real risk that in the rush to get some political mileage on this issue, the rights of Australians to freedom of speech will be jeopardised."

But these seem carping objections beside the difficulty of finding men and women who can pick what needs to be banned on psychiatric grounds. "If they need outside medical expertise they are free to obtain it," says Ruddock's chief of staff, Steve Ingram. But won't that be all the time? Who can guess what impact an old terrorism memoir such as The Seven Pillars of Wisdom "might" have on "a" paranoid schizophrenic somewhere out there.

Absurd? Exactly.

***

On Friday 26th July the State Attorney-Generals met with Philip Ruddock in Hobart to discuss his proposed tightening of the classification laws.

Hatzistergos supports classification review. ABC News 26.07.07

The New South Wales Attorney-General says he supports federal moves toward less restrictive laws governing the classification of sensitive material in books and films.

The attorneys-general meeting in Hobart today will discuss exempting material that is for the purposes of public discussion, entertainment or satire.

John Hatzistergos says under the previous classification system, films such as the IRA movie, The Devils Own, and books such as Nelson Mandela's biography would have been refused classification.

"We believe that the original proposals were unworkable and absurd, and we're pleased that the Commonwealth has now seen the error of its ways," he said.

"Nevertheless, we're happy to move forward in this way, we believe that the modifications are sensible and we're happy to support them."

Mr Hatzistergos says the previous system was unworkable and absurd.

"Well, I think it's important that we have balance. No one wants material which is advocating terrorism, or which can incite or counsel, [but] that doesn't mean that any material that may document terrorism should, by reason of that fact, be prohibited," he said.

"There are obviously circumstances in public discussion, in entertainment, in satire, where it's appropriate for those sorts of things to be documented."

***

The Attorney General
Philip Ruddock MP
Media Release 157/2007 
27 July 2007 

LABOR STATES FAIL TO ACT ON MATERIAL ADVOCATING TERRORISM 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today expressed strong disappointment that agreement could not be reached with State and Territory Censorship Ministers to toughen laws that deal with materials advocating acts of terror. 

Mr Ruddock said the failure of the states to recognise the need to do everything possible to stop the recruitment of the impressionable and vulnerable into terrorist activity, left him with no choice but to act independently. 

“Prevention is the new terrorism battleground and I am not prepared to wait indefinitely for Labor states to ensure this kind of material is removed from circulation,” Mr Ruddock said. 

“As I have said before, should an attack happen in Australia I want to be able to look into the eyes of those affected and know I did everything I could to stop terrorism and the recruitment of the impressionable and vulnerable into terrorist activity.” 

“Last month I introduced legislation in Parliament to allow the Australian Government to act independently from the states given that they have refused to co-operate with me to make changes to the National Classification Code and guidelines.” 

At the Standing Committee of Attorneys General meeting in Hobart today only SA and NSW agreed to support changes to classification laws as proposed by the Australian Government. The changes would have required publications, films and computer games that advocate terrorist acts to be refused classification by the Classification Board and be unavailable lawfully in Australia. 

The proposal included provisions to ensure the regulation would not impinge on freedom of speech or mainstream popular culture.

 “I initially sought state and territory agreement to change the classification laws in July 2006, and with no progress made on this issue, I am proceeding with the Classification Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 already introduced in the Australian Parliament,” Mr Ruddock said.

“Once the Bill is passed, the Australian Government will be in a position to deal with material that advocates terrorist acts.”

***

Aust to ban pro-terrorist material. ABC News 27.07.07

Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock says the Government is acting independently to amend classification laws after the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General failed to reach agreement on the change at today's meeting in Hobart.

Mr Ruddock says it is important the definitions used in the national counter-terrorism regime are consistent across all areas of legislation.

"The Commonwealth will legislate to put in place an amendment to the Classification Act, given we were not able to obtain a unanimous agreement from the states and territories to the proposed changes," he said.

He says it is regrettable some states are continuing to resist the Commonwealth moves, with only New South Wales and South Australia offering support.

"That's not surprising given the vehemence of the support offered by [NSW] Premier Iemma when the DVD of Sheik Fayez Muhammed was first given a PG rating by the classification body," he said.

***

Attorney-General pushes for tougher censorship. The Age 28.07.07

FILMS or books praising East Timorese people who used violence in their fight for independence could be banned under proposed censorship laws before Federal Parliament, despite changes to the proposal intended to protect free speech.

University of New South Wales law professor George Williams made the warning yesterday as federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock promised to override the states in a bid to bring in new laws to ban films, books and video games that encourage terrorism.

Mr Ruddock's pledge to push ahead with the laws came after he failed to convince his state counterparts to agree to outlaw such material by changing the National Classification Code. South Australia and NSW had agreed to the changes at a meeting of attorneys-general in Hobart, but the other states refused.

Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls did not rule out agreeing to toughen the current laws banning materials that incite crime or violence.

But he believed there had to be more consultation before a ban was brought in, a spokeswoman said.

Mr Hulls also slammed Mr Ruddock for acting unilaterally. The federal legislation, which has already been introduced to Parliament, contains more protections than an earlier proposal by Mr Ruddock's department.

Material that depicts terrorist acts, but whose depiction could "reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or satire" is not to be refused classification.

The Age believes that the protections were added to the legislation in response to concerns raised within the Coalition.

But Professor Williams, director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at UNSW, said the changes would not be enough to protect free speech.

Professor Williams said he was most concerned about provisions that would ban material that, by praising terrorist acts, might encourage someone with a mental impairment to engage in such an act.

"I am not aware of anyone ever having used what someone with a mental impairment would do … as a test (of whether something should be banned)," Professor Williams said.

"It's an extraordinary suggestion … and it could lead to the banning of material that no reasonable person would think ought to be banned."

If "applied to the maximum, then you could be banning all sorts of things", Professor Williams said.

Under the proposed law, material that praised East Timorese who used violence in their fight for independence or was positive about Nelson Mandela's struggle against the apartheid regime and which could lead someone — even someone with a mental impairment — to "think that would be a good idea to resist a similar regime… could be banned".

But Mr Ruddock said the test of how material would affect someone with a mental impairment was not so very different from the current test of how a reasonable person might be affected.

In any case, if a law protected from "a reasonable person who will go out and bomb you, but not from an impressionable person (who might be influenced to carry out a terrorist act) … then it seems to me you have the wrong test", Mr Ruddock said.

***

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
NEWS RELEASE 175 /2007 
15 August 2007 

LABOR ON TERROR: ‘AMEN’ NO MORE 

Rudd Labor has deviated from its typical refrain of ‘Amen’ to Howard Government policy and has moved to weaken terrorism legislation. 

The House of Representatives passed today the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 which would allow the Howard Government to act quickly and decisively to remove materials that advocate terrorist acts from circulation. 

However Rudd Labor has signalled its intent to water down the legislation and delay its passage in the Senate. 

“I am deeply disappointed that the Opposition want to play around with this kind of issue,” Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said. 

“Governments have a responsibility to do everything possible to improve security to deal with potential terrorism threats in Australia and the stance of Labor clearly demonstrates that Labor across the nation is not serious about dealing with terrorism.” 

Mr Ruddock said he had been forced to introduce the legislation because most of the Labor State and Territory Governments refuse to amend the National Classification Code and Guidelines which requires unanimous agreement. 

“The failure of Labor States and Territories to reach agreement that we should stop the recruitment of the impressionable and vulnerable into terrorist activity left me with no choice but to act independently,” Mr Ruddock said. 

“I am disappointed that Rudd Labor sees no need to act decisively on this issue. This is a major problem with the Opposition. They are about putting in place measures that would be inadequate to protect the Australian community. It is clear that they see the bill as one that ought to be watered down.” 

Mr Ruddock said if the legislation is passed in its current form, the Australian Government would be in a better position to deal with material that advocates terrorist acts. The legislation includes provisions to ensure the regulation would not impinge on freedom of speech or popular culture.

“The fact is that terrorist organisers do not respect age or mental capacity – it is those who are younger and with diminished mental capacity who are more frequently targeted,” Mr Ruddock said. 

“Let me make it very clear: this measure would not be effective unless boards consider those who are more vulnerable to this sort of material.” 

“I would not want to be the one who finds that somebody who was mentally impaired picked up some of these messages and set off to carry out a suicide bombing here in Australia.” 

***

Classification Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007

The bill had its second reading in the House of Representatives and moved to the Senate. The ALP supported the bill.

The Bill Explained

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007
EM type EM
Bill number 07129
Date 21 June, 2007
Database Explanatory memoranda
Source House

2004-2005-2006-2007
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

(Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General,
the Honourable Philip Ruddock MP)

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007
OUTLINE

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Classification Act).

Schedule 1 makes amendments to the Classification Act to require that publications, films or computer games that advocate the doing of a terrorist act must be classified as Refused Classification. The amendments take effect the day after Royal Assent.

The Bill adopts the meanings of ‘advocate’ and ‘terrorist acts’ from the Criminal Code Act 1995 by adaptation of language or direct reference. It is intended that the meanings of these terms in the Classification Act remain consistent with their meaning in the Criminal Code.

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Bill will not result in any change to the net asset position for the Commonwealth.
As the amendments merely add a criterion for consideration by the Classification Board and Classification Review Board when classifying material, it is not expected that there will be any significant financial impact.

NOTES ON CLAUSES

Clause 1: Short title
This clause sets out the title by which the Bill, when enacted, is to be cited – Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Act 2007.

Clause 2: Commencement
This clause provides that the Act will commence on the day after it receives Royal Assent. It avoids any problem for decisions made on the day of, but earlier in time than, Royal Assent.

Clause 3: Schedule 1
Item 1. Section 5 (definition of submittable publication)
This item amends the definition of submittable publication to include unclassified publications that, having regard to new provision 9A, contain depictions or descriptions that are likely to cause the publication to be classified Refused Classification.

Item 2. Section 9
This item amends section 9 to provide that the general requirement to classify publications, films and computer games in accordance with the National Classification Code and classification guidelines is subject to the requirement in new section 9A that material that advocates terrorist acts must be classified as Refused Classification.

Item 3. After section 9 – new section 9A
This item inserts a new section that requires that publications, films or computer games that ‘advocate’ the doing of a ‘terrorist act’ – as defined – must be classified as Refused Classification by the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board.
The amendment is not intended to exclude from the Boards’ consideration the matters in section 11 of the Act. However, the Board and Review Board need not refer to the National Classification Code or guidelines if section 9A applies.

The Bill adopts the meanings of ‘advocate’ and ‘terrorist acts’ from the Criminal Code – by adaptation of language or direct reference.
The definition of ‘advocates’ is adapted directly from the definition of ‘advocates’ in section 102.1(1A) of the Criminal Code where it applies to the activities of an organisation. It is intended that ‘advocate’ should have the same meaning in the Classification Act when applied to a publication, film or computer game as in the Criminal Code when applied to an organisation. ‘Advocate’ covers direct or indirect advocacy, in the form of counselling, urging or providing instruction on the doing of a terrorist act. It also covers direct praise of a terrorist act where there is a risk that such praise might lead a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment) to engage in a terrorist act. This is intended to capture material that has the capacity to lead the impressionable to engage in a terrorist act.

The advocacy would need to be about doing a terrorist act, not merely expressing generalised support of a cause. The definition recognises that some communications about doing a terrorist act are inherently dangerous because they could inspire a person to cause harm to the community. This could be the case where it may not be possible to show a person had any intention that a specific terrorism offence be committed or to communicate the material to any particular person.

The term ‘terrorist act’ is given the same meaning as in section 100.1 of the Criminal Code. Any amendments made to that section will automatically apply to the definition of ‘terrorist acts’ for the purposes of the Classification Act. It is defined in the Criminal Code to mean a specified action or threat of action that is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and to coerce or influence by intimidation an Australian or foreign government or intimidate the public or a section of the public.
Subsection 100.1(2) of the Criminal Code sets out the types of actions or threats of action that can constitute a ‘terrorist act’. They include actions or threats that, if carried out, involve serious harm to a person or serious damage to property, endanger life, create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or are designed to seriously interfere with, seriously disrupt, or destroy, an electronic system. Electronic systems include information systems, telecommunications systems, financial systems, and systems used for essential government services, essential public utilities and transport providers.
However, subsection 100.1(3) of the Criminal Code expressly excludes advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action which is not intended to cause serious harm, death, endangerment of life, or serious risk to the health or safety of the public.

Subsection 100.1(4) of the Criminal Code makes it clear that a reference in the definition to a person, property or the public includes those within or outside Australia.

In addition, the definition in proposed new subsection 9A(4) specifically states that actions and threats of action comprise a ‘terrorist act’ regardless of where the action occurs, the threat is made or the action, if it were carried out, would occur. This is consistent with the application provision in section 100.4(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. However, other application provisions in Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code are not relevant for the purposes of the Classification Act.

The new section is not intended to restrict the legitimate exercise of freedom of speech or to prevent film-makers or authors or publishers from dealing with contentious subject matter in an informative, educational, entertaining, ironical or controversial way.

Proposed new subsection 9A(3) clarifies that the provision is not intended to capture material whose depiction or description of a terrorist act could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or satire. The subsection clarifies that material, which does no more than contribute to public discussion or debate or provide entertainment or satirical comment, is not material which should be classified as RC under this provision. Examples could include investigative journalists’ work, historical analyses, material that might appear to glorify war or battle (including ‘factional’ or fictional accounts of war, insurgency or resistance), satirical pieces, and popular culture movies. On the other hand, material containing content which goes further and advocates the doing of terrorist acts, for example by directly praising terrorist acts in circumstances where there was a risk of leading a person to do similar, runs the risk of inspiring someone to commit a terrorist act. Such material would be required to be classified RC.

Item 4. Application
This item makes it clear that the new provisions apply to all decisions made by the Board and Review Board on or after the day after Royal Assent, regardless of whether and when an application for classification was received.

If the Board had made a decision prior to the commencement of new section 9A, the Review Board must still apply that new section 9A.

***

Arch Bevis MP (ALP) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 15 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Bevis, Arch, MP (Brisbane, ALP, Opposition) Interjector Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER); Emerson, Craig, MP
Page 8 
Proof Yes
Source House 
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech 
Context Bills

Speech Mr BEVIS (Brisbane) (9.49 a.m.)—I note, first of all, that Labor is supportive of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007. We will be voting for it in the House of Representatives and also in the Senate, but we will be moving some amendments consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that the existence of PG-rated terrorist material came to light in April of 2005, and condemns the Attorney-General for taking more than two years to act to protect Australian children from this material, and notes that this Bill could have been advanced two years ago; 

(2) notes that it is completely unacceptable for the Attorney-General to sit on his hands for two years while material which exists to brainwash children into acts of terrorism is freely and lawfully distributed in Australia; and 

(3) notes that, under the government’s hand-picked Classification Board and Classification Review Board, a situation has evolved where material that openly praises and advocates terrorist acts can be given a rating as low as ‘PG’”. The aim of the legislation is to provide greater clarity as to whether or not terrorist material must be refused classification by the Classification Board of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The bill will insert a new section 9A into the act, which provides that material which advocates terrorist acts must be banned. The new section also provides the criteria that will be used to determine whether or not material advocates the doing of a terrorist act, specifically, whether it: (a) directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act; (b) directly or indirectly provides instruction on the doing of a terrorist act; and (c) directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person, regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment—within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code—that the person might suffer, to engage in a terrorist act.

The report of the Senate committee recommended that changes be made to paragraph (c) to remove the phrase ‘regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person may suffer’. This is an amendment that Labor will move, and I will return to those Senate committee recommendations shortly.

Proposed new subsection 9A(3) provides clarification of this. It provides that the section does not apply if the depiction or description could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of a public discussion or debate or is entertainment or satire. So material which is produced genuinely for public debate or is produced for entertainment and satire will not fall under the aegis of section 9A.

The bill originates from revelations earlier this year that films advocating terrorist acts of martyrdom and jihad had in fact been rated PG by the Office of Film and Literature Classification after referral of the material by the Australian Federal Police. In response to this, the Attorney-General firstly called on the states and territories to amend the classification laws and subsequently released a discussion paper on material that advocates terrorist acts, which has resulted in this bill.

Labor’s response was to call on the minister to immediately refer the films to the Classification Review Board on the grounds that the material promoted and incited matters of crime or violence. However, I do note that the Sydney Morning Herald had revealed the existence of these movies two years ago. At that time, the Attorney-General promised that he would act but then did nothing for a year until he wrote to the states to request action on the National Classification Code. Surprisingly enough, the Attorney-General has now decided that it is time to act, three months out from an election—indeed, perhaps less than three months out from an election.

Rather than bringing forward this legislation when the situation became public knowledge two years ago, and rather than act to protect Australians from this material at that time, the government and the Attorney have instead chosen to debate this legislation in the final sitting weeks before an election. I say to the Attorney and the government that they should not try to point the finger of blame at the states for this delay, for not agreeing to the proposals which were taken to the SCAG meetings earlier this year. The Attorney knew about the problem for a year before he wrote to the states, so it is a bit rich to sit on the issue for a year and then foist it upon the states and expect them suddenly to agree. Once again, the government is a picture of panic in slow motion. The government has known of the existence of this material for the past two years and until the introduction of this legislation had done precious little in an attempt to remove it.

At this point I want to take a moment to say something about the Classification Review Board. The chief problem facing Australia’s classification regime these days is simply the fact that the government has spent the past 11 years making sure that, instead of community representation, Liberal Party mates are more than well represented on that Classification Review Board. We have now reached the stage where four out of seven members of the review board have either direct or very close links to the Liberal Party. In other words, we have a board that, in large part, is representative not of the community at large but of a narrow political ideology represented in the Liberal Party. How can the Australian community have confidence in the classification watchdog when more than half of its members are representative of such a narrow constituency? The government, as it has done with so many other Public Service institutions that it has had its hands on, has transformed the Classification Review Board into a source of jobs for Liberal Party mates.

I note that in the community there are many who have expressed opposition to this bill. I want to make a couple of comments in the hope of allaying some of those concerns. It is Labor’s opinion that the bill will not improperly or unfairly impact on the legitimate right of the community to debate these issues. I note that there are moves underway at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General that will allow for much greater freedom for academics to access the material that has been refused classification. As we understand that many in the community have legitimate concerns regarding the legislation, there are a number of points that need to be made in response to those concerns.

The first point is that the concerns of many in the community opposed to this bill have to be weighed against competing interests, which include the right of the community to protect itself from material which openly advocates violent attacks upon it. The unfortunate and unacceptable situation at the moment is that we have material which openly advocates for young children to become terrorists and which racially vilifies groups, particularly Jewish people, being given a rating of PG. As Australia’s alternative government, Labor takes the threat of terrorism seriously. We will not allow a situation to evolve where material, such as Hamas’s infamous Mickey Mouse and Jihad bee characters, indoctrinates young Islamic children into committing acts of violence.

I point out that this bill belatedly arose out of a situation in which a DVD urged young children to become terrorists and martyrs yet had been given the same rating as The Neverending Story or Star Wars. There is a serious and legitimate concern about freely allowing material which openly purports to turn children into holy warriors or terrorists to circulate. While there is a general presumption in our society and in the Classification Code that adults should be able to see and read what they wish, there have always been limits on that right, and our society has endorsed those restrictions over time. On balance, we believe that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between the competing desires of public safety and the rights of adults to see and read what they wish.

The second point I would like to make is that there are legitimate uses of this material—for academic, security and intelligence purposes. I note that some have called for an exemption for academics from the provisions of this new bill. However, I am advised this cannot be achieved for technical reasons. While it is the Commonwealth which classifies the material, it is the states or territories which provide penalties for its distribution. So this is not something which we can achieve directly here, through federal legislation.

However, I would note that there are currently proposals before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General looking at ways to allow academics and others with a legitimate interest to legally access material that has been rated RC. I hope that the Attorney at some point will be able to provide some further insights into that matter. It is clearly an important issue that needs to be properly addressed. In federal Labor’s view, this is an appropriate way to progress the issue. We support the SCAG process. I understand that the proposals before SCAG do go a long way towards eliminating many of the concerns that have been raised in this area.

The third point I would like to make is that this legislation in many respects only clarifies what could be fairly regarded as the existing position. The National Classification Code, as it stands, already provides that material that counsels, praises, urges or instructs in matters of crime or violence must be refused classification. As advocating terrorism and terrorist acts are already offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, the effect of the legislation is largely to clarify the situation of material that promotes and incites terrorism. The effect of the scheme would be to streamline the process for police investigations of this material. If the police believed that material advocated a terrorist act—again, already an offence under the Criminal Code—they would be able to refer it to the Office of Film and Literature Classification for their consideration and subsequent classification.

Finally, I make the point that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended a change to the legislation to make it easier for the material to be classified. I have touched on this briefly before. But a problem arises in clause 9A(2)(c), which provides that material must be banned if ‘it directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person—regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person might suffer—to engage in a terrorist act’. The Senate made this recommendation after receiving submissions, including from the Classification Review Board, that this clause would be difficult to enforce. They said:

It is difficult to envisage circumstances where the review board might objectively assess how a teenager, for example, or a person with some mental impairment might react to praise of a terrorist act.

The committee ultimately recommended the removal of this clause from the bill. Labor supports that view and will be moving amendments in the Senate in an effort to achieve that outcome.

I again remind the House that for the last two years the current government has allowed material of this kind to be freely circulated within Australia. That is a concern. Action on these matters could have and should have been taken much earlier. However, the legislation that is before the House is appropriately adapted to the twin tasks of providing proper guidelines for the classification of terrorist material and ensuring that the principle that adults should prima facie be able to read and view what they want is also upheld.

When the bill is before the Senate, we will be moving the amendment to which I have referred. I would encourage the government and the Attorney-General—who I am pleased to say is in the chamber, for which I thank him—to give consideration to the adoption of Labor’s amendment, which addresses a concern noted by the committee, including a number of senators from his own party. Labor, as I said, will be supporting the bill.

Interjection The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the amendment seconded?

Interjection Dr Emerson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

***

Sophie Mirabella MP (Liberal) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 15 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Mirabella, Sophie, MP (Indi, LP, Government) 
Page 10
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 
Main Committee No

Speech Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (10.04 a.m.)—I rise to support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007. It gives me no great pleasure to follow the member for Brisbane. The member for Brisbane spoke about the Liberal Party having a narrow constituency, but perhaps it has eluded him that, on this side of the House, we have representation from nurses, policemen, milkmen, doctors, lawyers and motor mechanics—unlike the situation opposite, where trade union hacks litter the opposition benches at a time when less than 17 per cent of the workforce in the private sector is unionised. This is the situation in a party that has been gutless and stuck in a previous century and refuses to reform its party structure to allow within its ranks genuine, fair representation of the Australian community. They know it, and they are embarrassed by it. The member for Brisbane’s bold claim that the Liberal Party has a narrow constituency does indeed ring very hollow.

The member for Brisbane also spoke about the threat of terrorism. I could not help but sense yet again Labor saying ‘me too’. But let us stop for a minute and think: had the Labor Party been in government instead of the coalition over the last few years, would we have had the myriad of security measures that this government has taken? The answer is no.

They like to say, ‘We’re exactly the same as the coalition.’ They like to say, ‘We will be just as strong on security and terrorism.’ But we know, and in their hearts the Australian people also know, that this is wrong, that this is false. It does not matter how many times and how loudly the Labor Party say, ‘We are just as strong against terrorism as the coalition’; in their hearts the Australian people know it is not true.

When the Attorney-General presented this bill to the House in June, there was a view around the parliament that perhaps we would not need to proceed with the bill as the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General would be meeting in July and this issue would be resolved with amendments to the National Classification Code and guidelines, which require the consent and agreement of the states and territories. That meeting of the state and territory attorneys-general occurred on 27 July this year, exactly one year since the standing committee had previously met. It should be noted that New South Wales and South Australia were the only two states who agreed to support the amendments to the classification act that were proposed by the Australian government.

The Attorney-General is on record as saying that he would rather have dealt with the matter under the provisions of the National Classification Code and guidelines than deal with it under the classification act. But, as the National Classification Scheme is a cooperative disposition with the states and territories, all state and territory attorneys-general and the Commonwealth Attorney-General must agree to the provisions contained in the code and the associated guidelines.

Let no-one be confused as to the lengths to which the Commonwealth Attorney-General has gone in seeking the agreement of the states and territories to amend the classification laws landscape. Indeed, so much of his current role is taken in negotiating with all sorts of individuals within his party and between governments to get cooperation and agreement on essential legislation in the national interest.

This process has been going on for more than 12 months. In fact, on 27 July 2006, the Commonwealth Attorney-General noted that he was pleased that, after a meeting of the state and territory censorship ministers, the states were ‘willing to support a fresh look at the classification scheme’. Yet 12 months later, they did not agree to such important changes. It is like Victoria’s approach to the National Plan for Water Security all over again. You can just smell an election in the air when state Labor governments become recalcitrant and work against the national interest just to support their union hack mates in the federal parliament.

It is surely not a fanciful policy ideal to ensure that material advocating and supporting terrorism be illegal in our country. Why has it taken the states more than 12 months to come to terms with this basic policy ideal? We are not dealing with fairytales here. We are dealing with the very materials that advocate acts of terrorism. This bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to require that publications, films and computer games that promote terrorist activity and terrorist acts be refused classification. This measure will essentially make it illegal to deliver, promote or sell such material in Australia. It is clear that the Australian government is serious about ensuring that material which supports and promotes terrorist activities will not be legally available in Australia.

Of course, concern has been expressed that this legislation may impinge on the notion of free speech. This is misguided as the proposal put before the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General clearly included provisions that would have ensured that these new provisions would not encroach or infringe upon our much valued freedom of speech or mainstream popular culture. In society we often say that prevention is better than cure. When we are dealing with terrorism, it seems that it is often prevention which is the hardest battleground to conquer.

Once again, some in the filmmaking industry and the publishing industry need to realise that these provisions are not intended to limit the authentic operation of their democratic right to free speech, nor are they intended to limit writers, publishers or filmmakers from dealing with sensitive subject matter in an informative manner. There are protections in the act for public discussion and debate, along with investigative journalistic work and other things such as historical analyses. However, the government believes that material which goes beyond this—material which might directly praise terrorist acts or might inspire, provoke or instigate terrorist activity—clearly needs to be dealt with under the Classification Act to ensure this material is free from the hands of those in our society who wish to do harm with evil intent.

We need to do everything we can to improve our laws to prevent material that glorifies terrorism by removing its circulation within our community. This is a basic responsibility we have as a national government: to ensure that we take these preventative measures in the national interest and in the interests of the safety of our communities right across Australia.

So I take the cries from prominent actors, academics and celebrities who claim that actions such as these are too draconian or an encroachment of civil liberties with a grain of salt. As the Attorney- General noted in his second reading speech on this bill, this is a very serious issue. He has noted that it is important to strike the right balance on matters such as this. On this matter I agree with him entirely. But that does not mean we should not take strong peremptory action in condemning terrorist acts, which are tightly defined under the Criminal Code, and the published material which might inspire terrorism.

The Attorney-General should be commended for bringing this matter to fruition. Whilst the government would have preferred that the states and territories came on board through amending the classification code, this was not to be the case as interstate egos, a federal election and other priorities got in the way. This is an issue that is far too important to get bogged down in petty politics. When passed, this bill will allow the Australian government to be in a better position to deal with material which advocates terrorist acts and we should support this wholeheartedly. I commend the bill to the House.

***

Phillip Ruddock MP (Liberal) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 15 August, 2007 
Database House Hansard
Speaker Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP, Government) Interjector Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
Page 12 
Proof Yes
Source House 
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech 
Context Bills
Main Committee No 

Speech Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Attorney-General) (10.43 a.m.)—I thank the members for Brisbane and Indi for their contributions to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007. I particularly thank the member for Indi because I think her contribution was very measured, sensible and a constructive contribution to a debate that is of the utmost importance. I will come back to the member for Brisbane shortly, but let me just make it very clear that governments do have a responsibility to do everything possible to improve security to deal with potential terrorism threats in Australia. Waiting for a terrorist attack to occur is unacceptable, and I have been concerned for some time about the influences within our society that lead people into terrorism. We need our laws to deal with material that encourages people to commit terrorist attacks, and that is what this bill is about.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 amends the Classification Act so that material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be refused classification. Material that has been refused classification cannot be legally sold, exhibited or displayed in Australia. There is significant doubt and uncertainty whether the current classification laws adequately catch material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. What is clear is that something needs to be done. I would like to point out that this bill was not how I wanted to resolve the issue. I made it clear in my second reading speech that this bill would not proceed if the state and territory governments did not agree to amendments to the classification code and guidelines.

However, the states and territories have been anything but cooperative. I first sought their agreement over a year ago and have continued to press the issue in good faith since then. I was hopeful that agreement could be achieved at the Standing Committee of Attorneys General meeting in July this year, but unfortunately the states and territories continue to frustrate the process, and I am not willing to indefinitely wait to address this problem. It is disappointing that the Commonwealth has been forced to go it alone on this issue. The states are clearly divided. New South Wales and South Australia indicated their support for the proposal. The National Classification Scheme requires the unanimous support of all governments. That is why the initiative failed. I want to make clear that New South Wales and South Australia did indicate their support. The states and territories are clearly divided on this issue.

In thanking members who have contributed to this debate, let me deal with the member for Brisbane very directly. I am quite disappointed by his amendment. He is not without accurate information in relation to the chronology of events in this matter. I was asked a question by his colleague in the other place—I assume he talks to the shadow Attorney, Senator Ludwig—and I answered on 24 May questions that went to this very issue.

I might table a chronology of events for the benefit of the House. It is a chronology which identifies that what happened in 2005 is that there was a discussion between me and Ray Hadley on radio station 2GB about the sale of books inciting terrorism, our sedition laws and also the classification process. I took steps following that matter back in July 2005 to have the AFP examine eight publications and one film, and they determined that no offences had been committed. The AFP provided material in December to the Classification Board for assessment, and they classified the film ‘PG’ and the publications ‘Unrestricted’. The AFP consulted with the DPP and then examined the material against the recently amended sedition laws. I requested advice and I received that. Separately, I applied to the Classification Review Board for a review of the classification of the eight publications and one film. I wrote to censorship ministers in June 2006, putting them on notice that this was an issue that I thought the censorship ministers should consider. The Classification Review Board did refuse classification for two publications. They reclassified the other six publications ‘Unrestricted’, and the film remained ‘PG’.

So it can be seen that I was very active in dealing with these issues. It can be said quite clearly that it is quite inappropriate to offer any criticism of me, in the form of the amendment, for delaying this matter and sitting on my hands for some two years, as suggested. It is quite inappropriate given that the member had the chronology available to him to draw those conclusions.

I notice that in his comments he went on to say that the extent to which academics might be able to access material that is seen to be advocating terrorism for academic pursuits is an issue that ought to be addressed. That was an issue that I put on the agenda for censorship ministers to deal with. It was an issue that I thought was appropriate to be examined. I notice that the shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, says that this is not an issue that the Commonwealth should deal with unilaterally and that I should continue to work with the states and territories. So on the one hand he says that I should work with the states and territories and continue to suffer the frustration of their inertia—and I might say that they are very slow to deal with these issues; but on the other hand—that is, the praising and advocacy of terrorism acts in material—he says that I should in some way be condemned because I had endeavoured to treat with his Labor colleagues in state and territory governments.

I make it very clear that this is not an issue in which any delay can be sheeted home to me. It is an issue in which there has been very clear frustration of the process by certain Labor attorneys, and that indicates to me quite clearly that the Labor Party across this nation is not serious about dealing with terrorism issues. I was faced with a situation in which I could only get New South Wales and South Australia to support me, and people were coming into this chamber and saying: ‘Look, this is an important measure. You’ve been sitting on your hands. You should’ve been dealing with it and you should be criticised for it.’ And then they foreshadowed an amendment that the opposition intended to move in the Senate—not in this chamber, but in the Senate—which would effectively weaken the measures! They say they support the measures, but then they want to weaken the measures—and they do so very deliberately when they say that they would support an amendment that would effectively delete the measure that says that those who are looking at these issues should have regard to a person’s age and mental impairment when they look at the impact that material advocating terrorism might have on them.

I want to deal with that issue quite deliberately. This bill is not about restricting freedom of speech; it is about ensuring that material advocating terrorist acts is no longer legally available. The bill takes into account submissions received during the widespread consultations. The original proposal was modified to address concerns expressed about its scope. In particular, section 9A(3) of the proposed bill was added to make it clear that material that does no more than contribute to debate or public discussion or is of no more than entertainment value or satire is not material to which this provision is intended to apply. The explanatory memorandum states clearly that the provision is only intended to capture material which goes further than that and actually advocates the doing of a terrorist act. As I said, I did, as always, happily see the bill referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to delete reference to ‘regardless of his or her age or mental impairment’ from the proposal.

The government considers the amendment proposed by the committee unnecessary. In fact we think it would be highly undesirable because the classification scheme requires boards to consider the context of material and its target audience. Paragraph 9A(2)(c) makes certain that, in assessing whether there is a risk of a person engaging in terrorist acts, boards do not inappropriately consider only an average or ordinary person. The fact is that terrorist organisers make material available with a view to encouraging the naive and, in some cases, the mentally impaired to participate in terrorist acts—in particular, suicide bombing. The government believes that if the criteria is pared back in the way proposed by the opposition, the classification board and the classification review board will make decisions with reference to whether the material presents a risk to the ordinary or average person. This measure would not be effective if that were adopted, and I would hope that the opposition would reconsider its approach on this matter. Let me make it very clear: this measure would not be effective unless boards consider those who are more vulnerable to this sort of material. I make it very clear that I would not want to be the one who finds that somebody who was mentally impaired picked up some of these messages and set off to carry out a suicide bombing here in Australia—influenced by material of that sort, which we could have done something about.

This is a major issue, as far as I am concerned, with the opposition. They are about putting in place measures that would be inadequate to protect the Australian community. Yet they come in here and say, ‘We’re not opposing the bill.’ It is clear that they see the bill as one that ought to be watered down. If you look at the way in which the Labor Party are looking at these issues across the nation, what you see is that they are clearly divided. We have the New South Wales government saying, ‘Look, we support you.’ The South Australian government says, ‘We support you.’ What does that say about Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia, the ACT or even the Northern Territory? What I say is that the Labor Party across this country are clearly divided about the urgency and the need to deal with these issues. They were prepared to frustrate this in the committee process. They have the audacity to come in here and suggest that I have been in some way derelict in my responsibilities because I saw fit not to play what they accuse us of being engaged in—that is, a blame game. But when you sit down and try to talk about the issues and work them through, you find it a very frustrating process. I am deeply disappointed that the opposition want to play around with this sort of issue. They pretend that they are just as concerned about these questions as the government, but they seek to undermine the legislation by amendments and they condone the actions of their colleagues in the states, who clearly were not prepared to come to the party on dealing with these issues.

Finally, I will conclude with some general comments about the scope of the bill. The provisions do set a high hurdle for material to be refused classification. Some have expressed concerns about the ease of applying the provisions. The provisions provide a clear set of elements for the classification board and the review board to consider when making decisions on these matters. It is important that people understand that, to be refused classification, material must advocate the doing of a terrorist act. These are the two terms that are defined in the bill. These are precisely defined terms, taking their meaning from or directly adapting the Criminal Code provisions which were agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments following widespread consultation when introducing antiterrorism laws in 2005. The meaning of these terms should be consistent with their meaning in the Criminal Code. Terrorist acts are a specific and highly dangerous threat to Australian society. The government believes very firmly that material that advocates that people undertake such acts should not be legally available and that the measures in this bill will achieve this objective. I commend the bill very strongly to the House. I hope it will receive a speedy passage and I hope that the opposition will reconsider their proposals to move amendments in the other place.

Interjection The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the member for Brisbane has moved as an amendment that all words after that be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

***

HVP No. 188 6CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007

Date 15 August, 2007 Page 2072

Proof Yes Database Votes & Proceedings

Source House Main Committee No

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time—

Debate resumed by Mr Bevis who moved, as an amendment—That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that the existence of PG-rated terrorist material came to light in April of 2005, and condemns the Attorney-General for taking more than two years to act to protect Australian children from this material, and notes that this bill could have been advanced two years ago;

(2) notes that it is completely unacceptable for the Attorney-General to sit on his hands for two years while material which exists to brainwash children into acts of terrorism is freely and lawfully distributed in Australia; and

(3) notes that, under the government's hand-picked Classification Board and Classification Review Board, a situation has evolved where material that openly praises and advocates terrorist acts can be given a rating as low as `PG'".

Debate continued.

Document

Mr Ruddock (Attorney-General) presented the following document:

Chronology of events in relation to the review of classifications and the introduction of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007.

Debate continued.

Amendment negatived.

Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put and passed—bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved immediately.

On the motion of Mr Ruddock the bill was read a third time.

***

The Bill Moves to the Senate

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 15 August, 2007 
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Colbeck, Sen Richard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, LP, Tasmania, Government) 
Page 63
Proof Yes 
Source Senate
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 

Speech Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) (4.26 p.m.)—I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007 improves the ability of our laws to prevent the circulation of material which advocates the doing of terrorist acts.

This is a serious issue. Currently there is too much uncertainty around whether the existing classification laws adequately capture such material. This material should not be legally available in Australia.

The Bill introduces new provisions to the Classification Act, which will expressly require that publications, films or computer games that advocate the doing of a terrorist act must be classified as Refused Classification.

I would prefer to see these provisions in the National Classification Code and guidelines, not in the Classification Act, but that requires the States’ and Territories’ agreement.

As the classification scheme is a co-operative national scheme the State and Territory Censorship Ministers and I must agree to the provisions of the Code and guidelines.

I first sought State and Territory agreement to changes to classification laws in July 2006. To date, they have been reluctant to respond positively to my proposals. I am not prepared to wait indefinitely to address this problem.

Following public consultation on a Discussion Paper, I recently wrote to Censorship Ministers seeking their agreement to amend the Code and guidelines to require the Classification Board to refuse classification of material that advocates terrorist acts.

I am hopeful that my State and Territory colleagues will agree to these amendments at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting in July. If they do, the amendments in this Bill will not be needed.

If States and Territories do not agree in July, we must be in a position to ensure that material that advocates the doing of terrorist acts is not legally available in Australia. This Bill ensures that this can be done expeditiously through an amendment to the Classification Act.

The Bill introduces the same provisions as the proposed amendments to the Code and guidelines. It requires the Classification Board to refuse classification of material that advocates terrorist acts. The provisions take into account submissions received following public consultation on the Discussion Paper. The submissions were carefully considered and, consequently, the proposal has been refined, so that the new provisions will operate effectively against unacceptable material but will not impinge on freedom of speech or mainstream popular culture.

The requirement in this Bill for material to be classified as ‘Refused Classification’ is not intended to restrict the genuine and legitimate exercise of freedom of speech or to prevent film-makers, authors or publishers from dealing with contentious subject matter in an informative, educational, entertaining, ironical or controversial way.

As the Bill clearly sets out, where the treatment of a terrorist act could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or satire, it is not to be refused classification.

This protects material such as investigative journalists’ work, historical analyses, material that might appear to glorify war or battle (including ‘factional’ or fictional accounts of war, insurgency or resistance), satirical pieces, and popular culture movies.

On the other hand, material which goes further and advocates the doing of terrorist acts, for example by directly praising terrorist acts in circumstances where this runs the risk of inspiring someone to commit a terrorist act, would and should be required to be classified Refused Classification.

Striking the right balance is important. Freedom of expression is an important part of our society’s values. However, there is another right which must be protected—the right to be protected from the pernicious influence of material that advocates the naïve and impressionable to go out and commit terrorist acts against other human beings.

The Bill adopts the meanings of ‘advocate’ and ‘terrorist acts’ from the Criminal Code Act 1995 by adaptation of language or direct reference. It is intended that the meanings of these terms in the Classification Act remain consistent with their meaning in the Criminal Code.

‘Advocate’ covers direct or indirect advocacy, in the form of counselling, urging or providing instruction on the doing of a terrorist act. It also covers direct praise of a terrorist act where there is a risk that such praise might lead a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment) to engage in a terrorist act.

However, the advocacy would need to be about doing a terrorist act, not merely expressing generalised support of a cause.

The term ‘terrorist act’ is given the same meaning as in section 100.1 of the Criminal Code. Any amendments made to that section will automatically apply to the definition of ‘terrorist act’ for the purposes of the Classification Act.

‘Terrorist act’ is tightly defined. The action or threat must be made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and coercing or intimidating an Australian or foreign government or the public. It includes actions or threats involving serious harm to people, damage to property, endangerment of life, serious risk to the public’s health or safety, or seriously interfering with an electronic system including telecommunications, financial and essential government services systems, essential public utilities and transport providers.

Action which is advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action, not intended to cause serious harm, death, endangerment of life, or serious risk to the health or safety of the public, is expressly excluded from being a ‘terrorist act’.

This Bill will improve the ability of our laws to prevent the circulation of material which advocates the doing of terrorist acts. Classification laws need to be better able to ensure that such material is not available in Australia.

Whether that happens through amendments to the National Classification Code and guidelines with the agreement of the States and Territories or through amendments to the Classification Act that I introduce today is not yet clear.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

***

Senator Joe Ludwig (ALP) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 19 September, 2007 
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Ludwig, Sen Joe (ALP, Queensland, Opposition) 
Page 130
Proof No 
Source Senate
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007 Second Reading

Speech Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (5.51 p.m.)—I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007. I note that Labor are supportive of this bill; we will support it and vote for it. However, during the committee stage we will move amendments consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. These were recommendations from a decision of a committee where the majority of Liberal and Labor members supported those recommendations. The aim of the legislation is to provide greater clarity on whether or not terrorist material must be refused classification by the Classification Board of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The bill will insert a new section 9A into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act, which provides that material which advocates terrorist acts must be banned.

The proposed new section also provides the criteria that will be used to determine whether or not material advocates the doing of a terrorist act, specifically whether:

(a) it directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act; or (b) it directly or indirectly provides instruction on the doing of a terrorist act; or (c) it directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person—(regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person might suffer)—to engage in a terrorist act. The report of the Senate committee has recommended changes be made to proposed subsection (2)(c) to remove the phrase:

... (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person might suffer) ...

This is an amendment that Labor foreshadows it will move in the committee stage. I will return to that in due course. The recommendation was that proposed new section 9A(3) provide a clarification to this, so that the new section would not apply if the depiction or description:

... could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or satire.

So material which is produced genuinely for public debate or for entertainment and satire will not fall under the aegis of proposed section 9A.

Turning to the background of the bill, the bill originated from considerations earlier this year that films advocating terrorist acts of martyrdom and jihad and calling Jews ‘pigs’ were freely available in Australia, having been rated PG by the Office of Film and Literature Classification—OFLC—after referral of the material by the Australian Federal Police. In response to this, the Attorney-General, Mr Philip Ruddock, firstly called on the states and territories to amend the classification laws and subsequently released a discussion paper, ‘Material that advocates terrorist acts’, which has culminated in this bill.

Labor’s response was to call on Mr Ruddock to immediately refer the film to the Classification Review Board on the grounds that the material promoted and incited crimes or violence. However, I note that the Sydney Morning Herald revealed the existence of these movies some two years ago. At the time, the Attorney-General promised that he would act but then did nothing for a year, until he wrote to the states to request action on the National Classification Code. Surprisingly enough, the Attorney-General has now decided that it is time to act, in this instance very shortly before an election. Rather than bring forward this legislation when the situation became public knowledge two years ago and rather than act to protect Australians from this material at the time, he has instead chosen to debate this legislation in possibly the final sitting week before the election.

There is no point in playing the blame game. There is no point in blaming the states for this delay, for not agreeing to the proposals that he took to SCAG earlier this year. The Attorney-General knew about the problem for a year before he wrote to the states. It is a little rich to sit on an issue for a year then throw your hands in the air, foist it on the states and expect them suddenly to agree. Once again the government really demonstrates that it is in a bit of a slow panic over this issue. The government knew about the matter and could have dealt with it in a reasonable way in the course of the 12 months. It could have raised it with the states, raised it through the proper channels and then been able to resolve it, at least with time on its side. The government has known of the existence of the material for the past two years and still, with the introduction of this legislation, has done nothing to attempt to remove it. We have only got to this point now.

I want to take a moment to say a little bit about the Classification Review Board. The chief problem facing Australia’s classification regime these days is simply the fact that the government has spent the last 11 years, instead of making sure that the Classification Review Board has community representation and instead of ensuring that it works effectively within the legislative regime, making it a place where Liberal Party mates are more than well represented. We have now come to a stage where four out of the seven members of the review board have either direct or very close links to the Liberal Party. In other words, we have what is commonly called a non-representative body, in my view, where a large part of the community is not represented.

On the board is a narrow political ideology representing their views. It is really no wonder that the decisions are so out of touch with the community when the Liberal Party is the holder of the majority in the Classification Review Board. How can, really, the Australian community have any confidence in the classification watchdog when more than half of its members are representatives of such a narrow constituency? The government has, like it has with other areas of Public Service institutions, got its hands on it. It has transformed the Classification Review Board into another source of jobs for mates. That is how we got into this mess. Now the Attorney-General has had to find a legislative fix, given his inaction and the way he has treated the Classification Review Board as a place for mates.

I note that many in the community are opposed to the bill. I hope to allay some of their concerns, if not all. It is Labor’s opinion that the bill will not improperly or unfairly impact on the legitimate right of the community to debate these issues. There are moves underway at the Standing Committee of Attorneys General that will allow much greater freedom for academics to access material that has been refused classification. As I understand it, many in the community have legitimate concerns regarding the legislation. However, there are four key points that I would like to take the opportunity this evening to respond to.

The first is that the legitimate concern of many in the community opposed to the bill must be weighed against the competing interests, which include the right of the community to protect itself from material which openly advocates violent attacks upon it. The unfortunate and unacceptable situation at the moment is that we have material which openly advocates for young children to become terrorists, which racially vilifies Jewish people and which is given a PG rating. As Australia’s alternative government, Labor takes the threat of terrorism seriously. We will not allow a situation to evolve where material such as Hamas’s infamous Mickey Mouse look-alike and ‘jihad bee’ characters indoctrinates young Islamic children into acts of violence. I point out that this bill belatedly arose out of a situation in which a DVD urged young children to become terrorists and martyrs, and yet it was given the same rating as The NeverEnding Story or Star Wars.

There is a serious and legitimate concern about freely allowing material which openly purports to turn children into holy warriors or terrorists to circulate. While there is a general presumption in the classification code that adults should be able to see and read what they wish, there have always been limits on this. The right to free speech does not extend to yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre, nor does it extend to indoctrinating children in acts of terrorism. On balance, Labor believes that this legislation does strike an appropriate balance between the competing desires of public safety and the right of adults to see and read what they wish.

The second point I would like to take up is that there naturally are legitimate uses of the material itself. Academic, security and intelligence purposes come to mind. I note that some have called for an exemption for academics from the provisions of the new bill; however, this cannot be achieved for technical reasons. While it is the Commonwealth which classifies this material, it is usually state or territory law which provides penalties for its distribution. In other words, the penalty provision or regime is within the states, so this is not something which can be achieved easily under the federal jurisdiction.

However, I would note that there are currently proposals before the Standing Committee of Attorneys General which are looking at ways to allow academics and others with a legitimate interest to legally access material that has been rated RC. I will take the opportunity in the committee stage to examine how far that has now been progressed. It was a matter that was raised in the Senate committee hearings, and obviously some time has passed since then, so I am sure that the department, through the minister, can provide some assistance. In federal Labor’s view, this is an appropriate way to progress the issue. Labor supports the SCAG process. The proposals before the SCAG go a long way to eliminating many of the concerns—the legitimate concerns, may I add—that have been raised by persons who have a legitimate interest in the material.

The third point I would like to explore is that, when you look at it, this legislation in fact only clarifies the existing position. The National Classification Code, as it stands, provides that material that counsels, praises, urges or instructs in matters of crime or violence must already be refused classification. As advocating terrorism and terrorist acts are already offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, the effect of the legislation is largely to clarify the situation of material that promotes and incites terrorism. The effect of the scheme would actually be to streamline the process for police investigation of this material. If the police believed that material advocated a terrorist act—again, already an offence under the Criminal Code—then they would be able to refer it to the OFLC for their classification.

Finally, I turn to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The Senate committee recommended a change to the legislation to make it easier for the material to be classified. I touched on this earlier this evening. As I stated earlier, the problem arises in subclause (c), which provides that material must be banned if it:

... directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person might suffer) to engage in a terrorist act.

The Senate committee made this recommendation after receiving submissions, including from the Classification Review Board itself, that this clause would be difficult to enforce. The Classification Review Board said:

It is difficult to envisage circumstances where the Review Board might objectively assess how a teenager, for example, or a person with some mental impairment might react to praise of a terrorist act.

The committee, having examined the submissions, ultimately recommended the removal of this clause from the bill. Labor will support that position and similarly foreshadows an amendment. The position ultimately arrived at, on the submission by the Classification Review Board itself, objectively sought to ensure that the Classification Review Board could do its job effectively and could ensure that material that fell into directly praising the doing of a terrorist act could be removed by making a Refused Classification decision. That which did not meet that standard would not. In other words, the Classification Review Board was indicating that it would be able to then make those decisions itself.

Unfortunately, in this instance, having allowed the situation to continue for over two years—plus, I might add, the full year in which he sat on his hands and did nothing—the current Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, once again went to the blame game, blaming the states not agreeing to the proposal that he took to SCAG this year to resolve the matter. That notwithstanding, he went out and beat it up beforehand, expected them to meet an agreement and held the bill over their heads to say, ‘If you don’t agree, I’m going to pass the legislation in any event.’ You really wonder about the negotiating skills of the Attorney-General in this respect. He was always going to get what he wanted—that is, the legislation—because of the way he commenced the negotiation. It was not, in my view, in good faith. He undertook a situation where he then ensured that we would be here debating this legislation rather than trying to reach general agreement with the states.

But I have already said that this matter was revealed more than two years ago. So, given he had known about it for that length of time and had left it right to the end to use in a manner which he chose, you can only conclude that he had one aim in mind. That was not to reach agreement with the states themselves but to then find someone to foist the responsibility for the delay in bringing forward proper measures onto the states themselves—in other words, to say, ‘Because you haven’t agreed, it’s your fault; therefore, I have to legislate, and it will take time.’

However, the legislation, in any event, is before us. It is appropriate and adapted to the twin tasks of providing proper guidelines for the classification of terrorist material and of ensuring that the principle that adults should, prima facie, be able to read and view what they want is upheld. It does achieve that. Labor will support the legislation, but I think it does not reflect well on the Attorney-General and the process that he has adopted in bringing this legislation forward. It could have been a much easier and neater process to engage the states, change the guidelines and give the opportunity for the OFLC, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board to do their work.

***

Senator Andrew Bartlett (Democrats) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 19 September, 2007 
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Bartlett, Sen Andrew (AD, Queensland, Opposition) 
Page 134
Proof No 
Source Senate
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills 

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007 Second Reading 

Speech Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.09 p.m.)—I seek leave to incorporate Senator Stott Despoja’s speech.

Leave granted.

***

Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja (Democrats) Comments on the Bill

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007: Second Reading
Date 19 September, 2007 
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Stott Despoja, Sen Natasha (AD, South Australia, Opposition) 
Page 134
Proof No 
Source Senate
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context Bills

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT (TERRORIST MATERIAL) BILL 2007 Second Reading

Speech Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (6.09 p.m.)—The incorporated speech read as follows—

As the Democrats’ Attorney-General Spokesperson, I rise