Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

The policy underlying this bill has largely been developed as a measure to control the return of Australian former Islamic State fighters and supporters from Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. I don't think anyone in this chamber disputes that. The bill provides for temporary exclusion orders, or TEOs as they are known, to prevent the return of individuals to Australia without a return permit and for return permits to enable pre-entry and post-entry conditions to be imposed on returning individuals. It provides a mechanism to control the return of individuals who may pose a threat to Australia. We recognise that. It enables the minister to impose conditions on individuals once they have returned to Australia to manage the risk that they may pose to communities.

Centre Alliance is sympathetic to the intent of the bill. However, it is essential that the legislation includes all of the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security during the previous parliament and that we are thoroughly able to investigate the concerns unearthed through that committee process, and this bill has not done this. The government introduced an earlier version of this bill in the last parliament and the provisions of that bill were subject to scrutiny through the PJCIS. In their bipartisan report, the committee recommended a number of substantive changes to the legislation. These were sensible, measured recommendations designed to improve the operation of the bill and to provide a modest level of parliamentary oversight and, as the member for Melbourne said, that does not exist in this bill. It is so alarming that Labor would be keen to wave this through—it just beggars belief. And so the government has decided to pick and choose the recommendations they are willing to implement—recommendations that were supported, as I said, by a bipartisan committee.

What we are seeing now is that government, with the opposition, are choosing to give yet more power to the Minister for Home Affairs. That is deeply troubling. Time and time again we are asked to give more powers to the minister and the agencies he oversees while at the same time any attempt at parliamentary scrutiny is rebuffed as being soft on security. That is not true.

We accept the need for the scheme and we accept it needs to be flexible and responsive to an ever changing landscape of foreign conflicts, but it is imperative that the legislation includes appropriate safeguards and accountability measures to ensure public confidence in the scheme. Without further scrutiny of this bill, what confidence can any member of parliament, let alone a member of the public, have in the transparent and just application of this scheme? Furthermore, Centre Alliance is calling for the government to release the legal advice that it received, if any, with respect to the constitutionality of this bill. The PJCIS clearly identified a constitutional uncertainty regarding the temporary exclusion of Australian citizens from their own country. The committee strongly recommended that the government obtain legal advice from the Solicitor-General with respect to constitutional validity of the provisions. We understand that that legal advice has been received, but is it shared with us to make an informed decision here tonight? No. How can I, as the member for Mayo, make an informed decision on this bill when we can't even see the Solicitor-General's advice?

How can I or any other member of this chamber be expected to make an informed decision? Again, Labor: please reconsider your position on this. It just flies in the face of everything that you purport to stand for here.

Of further concern, Arthur Moses SC, president of the Law Council of Australia, has provided legal advice that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional as it is currently drafted. So I call on the minister: please share the government's advice that you received from the Solicitor-General. We want to see it tabled in the parliament. We believe it is a fair and proper ask that you provide it to all members in this chamber. We do not believe that this request is unusual, onerous or without justification. The government's approach to this bill is another glaring example of why we need parliamentary oversight of intelligence agency operations.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context