Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ABCTLAFF1, standing in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 110, page 82 (line 1) to page 85 (line 10), omit sections 119.2 and 119.3.

(2) Schedule 1, item 110, page 92 (line 32), omit "or 119.2".

(3) Schedule 1, item 110, page 82 (line 13), at the end of subsection 119.2(1), add:

  ; and (d) the person enters, or remains in, the area with the intention of engaging in:

     (i) a terrorist act; or

     (ii) a hostile activity; or

     (iii) an activity prescribed by the regulations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 110, page 83 (line 5), after "family member", insert "or friend".

(5) Schedule 1, item 110, page 83 (after line 5), after paragraph (3)(g), insert:

  (ga) making a bona fide visit to a personal or business associate;

  (gb) providing legal advice;

  (gc) performing a bona fide business, teaching or research obligation;

(6) Schedule 1, item 110, page 83 (line 6), at the end of subsection 119.3(3), add:

  ; (i) any other purpose that a court determines is legitimate in all the circumstances.

A number of people that I have spoken to since these laws were first raised are very concerned about the effects of these laws on their legitimate travel plans. If this bill passes as is, it will be a criminal offence to travel. This bill criminalises travel to another country. There are many people in this country who regularly travel overseas to visit acquaintances, to do business, to visit their family. They may be going over to help others who are in strife. They will often go to areas where their family members, friends or business associates live that are areas that they themselves have fled from. These may be countries in Africa, instances of which I and people in my electorate are very familiar with. They will regularly go back to check on people who are in much grimmer situations than us. And that is why they fled in the first place. It may be that they are going for a religious pilgrimage, that they are visiting someone to give legal advice or that they are visiting a business associate. Or it may be that there is some other reason that might be determined to be legitimate in all the circumstances. If this bill goes through, the onus of proof is on them to prove that they have done nothing wrong. If they cannot establish that, they are presumed to have committed an offence.

These amendments put this bill back in line with the ordinary principles of criminal law. It will do so by doing two things. Firstly, these amendments will require that someone who has travelled overseas has done so with the intention to do harm. If someone who has gone overseas for an innocent purpose does not have that intention then they are not presumed to have committed an offence. So it introduces a mental element, as most other crimes have, so that the prosecution will be required to prove that someone went over there with the intention to do us harm. That is simple, fair and something that exists in relation to just about every other offence in this country, as it should in any country that says it cares about the rule of law and that says that the prosecution should have the burden of proving that someone has done something wrong.

These amendments will also extend some legitimate protections to people who go overseas, for example, to visit a business associate, to provide legal advice to someone or to perform a bona fide business, teaching or research obligation. They will allow a court to determine that, in certain situations, the reason for going overseas might have been legitimate in all the circumstances. That is what we should do. We should put the power back in the hands of courts to be able to determine in an individual instance whether or not someone has done something wrong.

The reason this is so critical is that there will be people in this country in their tens of thousands who regularly go overseas to visit someone close to them but who may, when they come back, not have a statutory declaration in their pocket from their business associate or their illiterate grandmother to prove why they went there. If they do not, if they cannot discharge that onus, then at the moment they are presumed to have committed an offence. All of those people who travel innocently and legitimately overseas to areas that, when they leave Australia, they may not even know have been declared a conflict zone—it may happen when they are over there—deserve to have their rights protected.

I do not want to see any more hand wringing from the Labor Party about this, because now you have an opportunity to support our amendment and preserve the rights of people who go overseas for legitimate reasons. The bill is going to pass—we know that—so let's carve out some protections for people who are not doing anything wrong. Let's not make travelling overseas a criminal offence, which is what will happen if these amendments are not passed. I urge the government, who knows that this bill is now going to get through, to protect the right of innocent people by supporting these amendments.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet ABCTLAFF2, standing in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 110, page 91 (lines 10 to 13), omit paragraph 119.7(2)(a), substitute:

  (a) the person publishes an advertisement in Australia; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 110, page 91 (line 15), omit "or item of news".

(3) Schedule 1, item 110, page 91 (lines 20 to 23), omit paragraph 119.7(3)(a), substitute:

  (a) the person publishes an advertisement in Australia; and

(4) Schedule 1, item 110, page 91 (line 24), omit "or item of news".

We need to have an open discussion in this country about why people are radicalising, because it is a threat to our safety. One of the first things we need to do is understand what tactics are being used by those who would do us harm and allow that to be reported and discussed so that we can stop it, so that every family who is worried that their child may be lured to go overseas and join the kind of terrorists that we are seeing at the moment knows what to look out for. Collectively, as a society, we need to have a discussion about what we need to do to ensure that Australia is a place where everyone feels that they have a place and where no-one wishes to do us harm.

But there is a broader principle here: we have a right to know what is going on and to discuss it. The Herald Sun this morning made clear in its editorial—not usually a paper that is known to line up with the Greens—that what is at stake is a question of freedom of the press, of the Australian right to know and doing what we should to ensure that all Australians are safer. It said:

The unarguable right of Australians to know what is done in their name is being torn down by security laws being rushed through Parliament.

The laws that make it a criminal offence to publish what are loosely called 'news items' about the way terror suspects are recruited is only one arm of an arsenal of restrictive legislation affecting the media.

But it is the public who are to be denied what they should be told. The community at large should know how young men are radicalised. Parents have every right to know how their sons are turned into willing recruits for Islamic State terrorism. They should be made aware of the pitfalls awaiting them, whether on the internet with its hate preachers, or in associating with the shadowy groups who will lead them astray.

That is why I am moving amendments that will continue to make it an offence in this bill that is obviously going to pass this parliament to publish recruitment advertisements but will remove the reference to news items so that we can have legitimate discussion in this country about what is going on in this country without risking sending journalists to jail.

The first set of security bills that went through this parliament in an unseemly rush with Labor and Liberal agreement had the effect of saying that a journalist could go to jail if they reported on a security operation that had gone wrong and resulted in an innocent person being killed. Labor signed up to that. We made the point here in this chamber and elsewhere in this parliament that that would stifle freedom of speech and deny Australians the right to know what is going on in their name. Labor could not pass the law quickly enough. Now they are out there wringing their hands at press conferences and saying, 'We didn't mean it.' Well, you were put on notice. You knew and you did it anyway. Now you have the chance to stop it with these amendments.

The government have the chance to stop it as well. I understand the Attorney-General has been out there saying, 'We never had any intention of sending journalists to jail.' Well, then, do something about it. Do not vote one day to send journalists to jail and then give a press conference the next day saying, 'We didn't mean to.' Vote with us now to change the law to protect freedom of the press and to protect journalists. That is what these amendments will do if you pass them. These amendments will ensure that this loosely defined and newly created term of 'news items' does not appear in the bill anymore.

Labor, enough with the hand wringing: support us and change the bill. Coalition, enough with asking us to take the Attorney-General on faith that at sometime in the future he will never prosecute a journalist: change the law so that it is impossible. Let's protect freedom of the press and let's protect the right of people in this country to know what shadowy recruitment tactics are going on so that we can have an informed debate about how to stop it. Quickly passing laws that threaten to send journalists to jail is not something that this parliament should be doing. I commend the amendments to the House.