Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—There is no greater responsibility of any government than to protect the safety and security of its citizens. As the events of recent weeks demonstrate, terrorism continues to pose a real and significant threat to Australia and Australian interests both here and abroad.

The Australian government is committed to ensuring the focus of Australia’s national security and counterterrorism laws remains on preventing a terrorist attack from occurring in the first place—not just waiting to punish those who would commit these heinous crimes after they occur. An effective legal framework is therefore fundamental to our ability to address Australia’s security environment. To that end, I am today announcing the release of a comprehensive discussion paper detailing the government’s proposed reforms to Australia’s national security and counterterrorism legislation.

The amendments proposed in this discussion paper seek to achieve an appropriate balance between the government’s responsibility to protect Australia, its people and its interests and to instil confidence that our laws will be exercised in a just and accountable way.

In December 2008, I announced and tabled our response to a number of outstanding reviews of national security and counterterrorism legislation, including:

• The Clarke inquiry into the Dr Mohamed Haneef case;
• The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report, Review of security and counter terrorism legislation;
• The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report, Inquiry into the proscription of ‘terrorist organisations’ under the Australian Criminal Code; and
• The Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of Australia’s sedition laws.

At the time, the government stated that it supported the majority of recommendations made by each of these reviews, which largely dealt with the need to provide clarification and in some cases additional safeguards in relation to the exercise of law enforcement and investigatory powers. In addition, the government also committed to publicly release draft legislation implementing the government’s response to these reviews.

While I will not attempt to outline in detail all the measures contained in a very detailed discussion paper, there are a number of key measures that are proposed. They include:

• expanding the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ in the Criminal Code to include psychological, as well as physical harm;
• providing police with new emergency powers to enter and search premises without a warrant where it is suspected, on reasonable grounds, that there is material relevant to a terrorist offence and there is a real and substantial threat to public health and safety;
• extending the time available for police to re-enter a premises under a search warrant from one hour to 12 hours in circumstances where they have been unable to enter or been required to evacuate due to emergency circumstances;
• introducing a new terrorism hoax offence, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, for those that seek to create a false belief that a terrorist act is occurring, or will likely occur;
• establishing a maximum seven-day limit on the amount of time that can be specified by a magistrate and disregarded from the investigation period in relation to an alleged terrorism offence;
• inserting a right of appeal for both the prosecution and the defendant against bail decisions in terrorism and national security matters, including the power to stay a bail order where an appeal is planned;
• creating an offence of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion to supplement the existing Commonwealth offence of inciting violence against a group;
• extending the expiration period of regulations proscribing a terrorist organisation from two to three years;
• amending the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 so that national security and counterterrorism court proceedings may be expedited;
• establishing a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to extend parliamentary oversight to include the Australian Federal Police in addition to the current brief of examining the Australian Crime Commission; and
• renaming the offence of sedition to ‘urging violence’ and expanding its provisions to include urging force or violence against an individual, not just a group, and including national origin, as well as race, religion, nationality or political opinion as a reason for urging violence.

The government has endeavoured to address the concerns and issues raised by recent important reviews of national security and counterterrorism legislation. I note in respect of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and the DSD, the reviews occurred at the time when those in opposition had the majority of the members on those committees, but the work was sound and the members were people of integrity and they have made balanced and sound recommendations. These responses, we believe, will achieve the right balance between strong laws that protect our safety while preserving the democratic rights that protect our freedoms.

The proposed package of reforms represents a significant step to achieve just that. The government’s efforts in this area, however, do not start and finish with the proposed reforms contained in the paper. We heard in question time today from the Minister for Home Affairs of the measures he is taking in the areas of electronic security and the areas of money laundering and preventing the financing of terrorist organisations.

In addition, my colleague the Special Minister of State, Joseph Ludwig, has already introduced legislation to establish a national security legislation monitor to review the practical operation, effectiveness and implications of national security and counterterrorism legislation and that will be done on an annual basis. The monitor will be independent and will consider whether legislation adequately protects public safety, without reducing cherished public freedoms.

The government has also extended the mandate of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to cover agencies such as the Australian Federal Police and progressed recommendations arising out of the Street review enabling greater interoperability between our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Indeed, the recent joint operation witnessed last week in Melbourne is testimony to the enhanced cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies at the Commonwealth, state and territory levels.

In addition, the government is also:

• completing its first counterterrorism white paper;
• developing strategies to counter violent extremism;
• implementing recommendations of a key e-security review to address the growth in sophisticated online attacks; and
• more generally, ensuring our national security strategy encompasses an all-hazards approach in both man-made and natural events.

Each and all of the measures I have outlined today are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to fight terrorism, while ensuring these laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and are fully accountable in their operation. As the Prime Minister stated in his National Security Statement last year, maintaining this balance is an ongoing challenge for all modern democracies in preparing for the complex national security challenges of the future. By striking this balance, the Australian community can have confidence in our national security framework.

The government remains committed to developing legislation in a careful and consultative manner and, with that in mind, has already provided the proposed amendments to state and territory governments for their consideration. The discussion paper provides key stakeholders and the Australian public generally with the opportunity to participate in the process of amending Australia’s national security and counterterrorism laws. I table a copy of the report, titled National Security legislation: discussion paper on proposed amendments, and I can indicate also that that discussion paper will be available on the website of the Attorney-General’s Department. The government is committed to developing these laws in a transparent and accountable way. The discussion paper will be open for public comment until 25 September 2009. Engagement with and support from the community is essential to that process being worth while. I certainly look forward to receiving submissions from those in this place and from the community more widely on these important reforms to our national security legislation.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Farrer to speak for 10 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Ley speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 10 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened with great interest to the statement by the Attorney-General. The opposition shares the government’s acknowledgement that its highest responsibility is to protect the safety and security of Australian citizens. We also share the commitment to ensuring that the focus of our national security and counterterrorism laws remains the prevention of any attack. It was the coalition that took the hard decisions to put these laws in place. We have been very fortunate in that no terrorist attack has been successfully mounted in Australia, but this is a result of vigilance rather than any evidence of abatement of the threat.

As the Leader of the Opposition said in his condolence motion speech in this place this week, the gruesome events in Jakarta on the morning of 17 July were a wake-up call for any who had dared to hope or imagine that the threat of global terrorism was on the wane. I would like to quote briefly from the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks, which illustrate the importance of the task we face:

The appalling agenda of the extremists is of course to sabotage that sense of comity and cooperation in our region, in our world. Their aim is to drive a wedge between peoples of different cultures and faiths. They must not be allowed to believe that they can succeed.

The legislative framework necessarily involves some intrusions on our traditional individual rights and liberties. That is why it is the task of this parliament to maintain a close watch over the framework to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck and, where necessary, recalibrate it. The opposition supports the ongoing process described by the Attorney-General. However, we note that this discussion paper, as just outlined by the Attorney, is not the delivery of the long-promised white paper, and it must be asked why it has taken so long to arrive only at this preliminary point in the process. Nevertheless, the opposition will carefully consider the measures contained in the discussion paper and the public participation that we hope it will generate.

I note that some legislative initiatives have already commenced—in particular, the National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2009, currently being considered by a Senate committee. That bill does not seem entirely consistent with the parliamentary joint committee’s recommendation, but, as I have said, it is the task of this place to subject our suite of national security laws to particular scrutiny, and that process is evidently underway already.

The opposition accepts that it is appropriate to consider extending the scope of the existing laws in a number of respects—for example, expanding the definition of a terrorist act to include psychological harm, creating a terrorist hoax offence, permitting prosecution appeals against bail decisions and expediting court proceedings. However, as the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, has stressed on several occasions, those who seek to expand the reach of laws which are themselves invasive bear the burden of persuasion that existing laws are inadequate. Parliaments must always be on their guard against the ratcheting up of laws by the passage of incrementally more invasive laws unless there is a demonstrated clear necessity for doing so. As well, it should always be remembered that when laws which abrogate or compromise traditional freedoms and immunities are passed in response to extraordinary events to deal with imminent threats to national security, they are not intended, nor would it be desirable, to alter the legal status quo forever. Having said that, the opposition does not consider that the threat posed by terrorism is today any less acute than it was when the Howard government reformed and extended the antiterrorism laws in 2002 and again in 2005.

I note the government’s proposal to revisit the sedition laws to more tightly focus them against violent threats and to protect freedom of speech. The opposition will examine these proposals carefully—in particular, the counter-radicalisation proposals which we hope will be informed by the experience in the United Kingdom. These policies, however, can only form part of our response to the threat of terrorism. As David Burchell in Monday’s Australian newspaper remarked:

In the end it will be for those brave souls in the—

at-risk—

… community to win or lose the fight for the hearts of their own young … I doubt there’s any remedy other than the enforcement of those crude but necessary laws that protect citizens from violence by other citizens.

While the opposition look forward to cooperating with the government in the review and refinement of the national security legislation, we will also continue to hold the government to account in ensuring that the existing laws are properly administered. Draconian laws are no substitute for well resourced national security agencies. In the last budget, the Australian Federal Police’s counterterrorism program was cut by $1.4 million, its intelligence program was cut by $3.2 million and funding of its economic and special operations program was cut by $8.1 million. In our view a commitment to counterterrorism is best evidenced by appropriate resourcing, not by ever more invasive curtailments of traditional rights and liberties. The opposition will examine the discussion paper with care and in light of these principles.