Senate 2018 02 07 5835 Copy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wednesday, 7 February 2018 SENATE 111 The primary offence covers cirCumstances where a person intends that, or is reckless as to whether, their conduct will result in, or is reasonably Capable of resulting in, a false representation. This conduct will be punishable by up to two years imprisonment. The amendments also create a new aggravated offence where a person falsely impersonates a Commonwealth body or service with the intent to obtain a gain, cause a loss, or influenCe the exercise of a public duty. The more serious and deliberate nature of this Conduct warrants an increased maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. These penalties are commensurate with offences for impersonating a Commonwealth official. The Bill contains safeguards to ensure that neither of these offences unduly limits freedom of expression. Impersonating a Commonwealth body — injunction powers The Bill also enlivens the injunction provisions in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. This will provide persons whose interests have been, or would be, affected by the false representation the opportunity to prevent such conduct through a court-issued injunction. The Bill will enable affected persons to apply to a relevant court for an injunction to prevent conduct in contravention of the new offences in the Criminal Code. The purpose of this power is to enable affected persons to act swiftly, if needs be, to prevent conduct amounting to false representation of a Commonwealth body. These amendments are critical to protecting Commonwealth bodies from criminal misrepresentation and ensuring the public has Confidence in all communications emanating from Commonwealth bodies. Conclusion This Government is committed to safeguarding the proper functioning of Australia's democracy and ensuring that Australians have trust in the validity of communications from Commonwealth bodies. The Bill will strengthen public confidence in all suCh communications, and ensure that those who deceive the Australian public are captured by the law. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Valedictory The PRESIDENT: I venture to say it's a while since the chamber has been this quiet. Pursuant to the order of the Senate agreed to on 6 February, the Senate will now move to valedictory statements. Senator BRANDIS (Queensland) (17:29): Before I begin my valedictory statement, may I acknowledge the distinguished presence in the President's gallery of a number of visitors, including the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Susan Kiefel, and Justice Edelman of the High Court; the Acting Chief Justice of the Family Court and Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court, the Hon. William Alstergren; the Commonwealth Solicitor- General, Dr Stephen Donaghue QC; the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Rosalind Croucher, and members of the commission; two former Commonwealth attorneys-general, the Hon. Philip Ruddock and the Hon. Justice Robert McClelland; the former Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Campbell Newman; many former members of the Senate; and many friends and family members, who have travelled to Canberra for this occasion. I also mention that the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the Hon. James Allsop, has a longstanding court commitment in Perth today but has asked me to say that he would have wished to have been here as well. Last December, shortly after my retirement from parliament was announced, Fairfax newspapers published a column assessing my political career. It was written by Waleed Aly, Australia's most philosophically literate celebrity—indeed, Australia's only philosophically literate celebrity. I've been accused of many things in the Fairfax press, but what Dr Aly accused me of is something I'm glad to admit. He accused me of consistency. With a couple of qualifications, he wrote that the various positions I'd taken over the years, sometimes in controversial debates like the section 18C debate, were best understood as a consistent adherence to Liberal philosophy. I'm glad of that, because for nearly 18 years in public life, for most of them on the front bench and for almost half of them in the coalition's leadership group, that is how I have tried to approach issues: by the conscious application of a set of values which I first outlined in my maiden speech, given from this very seat in 2000. In that speech, I quoted the philosophers—Mill, Burke, Isaiah Berlin, Immanuel Kant—who, in my view, represented the best of the classical liberal tradition. It is that tradition and its values that I came here to advance and defend. There have been some notable successes, which I'll mention in a moment. However, I am sorry to say that, after nearly two decades, I find those values under greater challenge than at any time in my memory. The parties of the Left have become even more authoritarian, particularly in their hostility to intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. Historically, parties of the Centre Right have opposed the Left's authoritarian mindset with arguments which elegantly balanced classical liberalism, with its belief in the freedom of the individual, with Conservatism, CHAMBER 112 SENATE Wednesday, 7 February 2018 with its respect for the integrity of institutions and the wisdom of evolutionary change. That is what the Liberal Party has always done, with reasonable success, over three-quarters of a century. But increasingly, in recent years, powerful elements of right-wing politics have abandoned both liberalism's concern for the rights of the individual and Conservatism's respect for institutions, in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism which shows no respect for either the rights of individual citizens or the traditional institutions which protect them. If I might adopt a brilliant phrase of yours, Mr President, we have seen the development of right-wing postmodernism. A set of attitudes which had its origins in the authoritarian mind of the Left has been translated right across the political spectrum. This presents a threat to both liberalism and Conservatism and a profound challenge to the Liberal Party as the custodian of those philosophical traditions. Being a liberal is not easy because it means respecting the right of people to make Choices which we ourselves would not make and of which we may disapprove. It means respecting the right of people to express their opinions, even though others may find those opinions offensive. It means respecting the right of people to practise their religion, even though others may find the tenets of that religion irrational. It means, in a nation of many cultures, respecting the right of people to live according to their culture, even though to others that culture may seem alien. It means respecting the right of everyone to marry the person they love, even though others may find their understanding of marriage confronting. It means rejoicing in the richness of a nation which accepts that every single person is unique and respects the right of every individual to live their lives in their own way, so long as they respect the equal right of others to do so as well. It does not require us to be comfortable with those different opinions or beliefs or ways of life. But it does mean, as the minimum condition of a liberal society, at least that we be tolerant of them. A liberal society is not based upon any notion of moral equivalence. It is perfectly consistent for me, for instance, to denounce Senator Hanson's views while defending her right to express them. But it is based upon the principle of mutual tolerance, which demands respect for the equal right of every Australian to live their lives in accordance with their own choices in the way they live, in what they believe, in what they say, in whom they worship, and in whom they love. Those are the values for which I have fought for nearly two decades in the parliament, in the media, in the party room, and in the Cabinet and the shadow Cabinet—sometimes with success, sometimes not, but always, I hope, Consistently. I've also sought to defend the fragile institutions which enshrine those values: parliament, the courts and the rule of law. Just as liberal values are not always easy to defend, neither is the rule of law, for it means insisting upon the equality of all in the eyes of the law, not just those who live blameless lives in the mainstream of society. The rule of law applies equally to the guilty as to the innocent. As Sir Robert Menzies, Australia's greatest lawyer- statesman, said: Do not let us begin to think lightly of the law. Its rule, its power, its authority are the centre of our civilisation. I have not disguised my concern of attacks upon the institutions of the law: the courts and those who practice in them. To attack those institutions is to attack the rule of law itself. It is for the Attorney-General always to defend the rule of law, sometimes from political colleagues who fail to understand it or are impatient of the limitations it may impose upon executive power. Although the Attorney is a political official, as the first law officer he has a higher duty: a duty to the law itself. It is a duty which, as my cabinet colleagues know, on several robust occasions I have always placed above political advantage. For more than four years, I was the minister responsible for domestic national security. That period coincided with the escalation of Islamist terrorism at home and abroad. I believe that we got national security poliCy right. Certainly it was the view of almost every commentator that it was one of the areas of the government's greatest strength.