Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly the preceding bill, the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010, was not particularly controversial because it really was dispatched incredibly quickly.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is called efficient government.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is about the only thing that is efficient about this government, but I digress. I rise to talk on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and theParliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. As we debate these bills today, in numerous places around the world members of Australia’s armed forces, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service are undertaking tasks that advance our national security. They all perform hard but necessary jobs. Equally important to Australia’s national security are our antiterrorist intelligence operations.

In the post 9-11 world Australia has expanded its counterterrorism capacity through our state and federal police agencies, ASIO and ASIS. The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on Australian soil testifies to their success, and in this vital area it is integral that the Gillard government continues to build on the good work of the former coalition government. We understand that keeping the Australian people safe is the most basic duty of the federal government.

One important facet of Australia’s national security where Labor has failed dismally is border security. Since August 2008, when the government dismantled our effective border protection system, there have been 174 illegal boat arrivals carrying over 8,200 people. This year alone there have been 106 illegal boat arrivals, carrying over 5,200 people. The Prime Minister’s failed immigration and border protection policies are now bringing illegal boats to Australia in record numbers; however, unlike the coalition, the Prime Minister is unwilling to take the necessary action to fix the chaos those policies have created.

Instead, Labor are opening two more detention centres, as Christmas Island overflows and onshore detention centres swell under the weight of Labor’s inept immigration and border protection policies. With one of the two new detention centres being located in the Western Australian town of Northam, it begs the question as to why Western Australia has to foot the bill for Labor’s failed border protection policies. The Northam Shire president, Steve Pollard, said Northam had mixed feelings about hosting a detention centre. He said:

There was a Facebook website page set up about three or four months ago with about 500 people posting their thoughts on it and 95 per cent of those were fairly much against the detention centre …

It would also appear that the Prime Minister did not bother to consult with the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, until an hour before Labor announced their decision to use the South Australian town of Inverbrackie as a location for a new detention facility. As reported by the ABC, Mr Rann was disappointed the state government was not consulted and he wants to know how the influx might affect state services. For a government obsessed with talkfests, they are showing an unprecedented level of arrogance by using regional Australia as a dumping ground for the surge of illegal arrivals.

Labor’s failed border protection policies have cost taxpayers in excess of $1.1 billion over four years, according to figures released in the 2010-11 budget. That is about $500 for every Australian man, woman and child. The government is chasing its tail with these costs. It is doing nothing to stop these costs from increasing. Its answer is just to keep shovelling money to pay for the blow-outs in our borders, which have now blown out in the budget. Blow-outs of $1.1 billion are just the beginning of all this. The figure will go higher and higher as long as this government is running our borders. People smuggling is an insidious trade that takes advantage of those in vulnerable situations. The Labor government needs to recognise this tragic fact and take action towards stopping the boats from leaving in the first place rather than luring them to the Christmas Island reception centre.

The coalition is committed to securing our borders against illicit drugs, disease, illegal foreign fishing and people smuggling. The integrity of our borders cannot be maintained without proper resourcing of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Since coming to office, Labor has cut funding to Customs for cargo screening by $58.1 million, making Australia’s borders less secure and our nation more vulnerable. In this year’s budget, Labor revealed it would axe up to 250 staff and $146.3 million from Customs and cut the funding of the Australian Federal Police by $23.5 million—the Australian Federal Police being our premier law enforcement agency. By taking an axe to Customs, Labor has made it much easier for illicit drugs and materials that are biosecurity threats to enter Australia. Labor has cut funding for essential border security activities, yet wasted billions of dollars on school halls and pink batts programs. Labor’s mismanagement means our communities face the threat of more illicit drugs entering the country.

I will move on to the proposals that are specifically contained within the bills. The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 proposes amendments to the legislation in four principal areas: treason, sedition and terrorism offences; powers to investigate terrorism and serious crime; the listing and proscription of terrorist organisations; and the protection of national security information in court proceedings.

The bill proposes that the offence of treason in the Criminal Code be amended by confining the offence to those who owe allegiance to Australia or have voluntarily placed themselves under Australia’s protection and clarifying that the offence of assisting the enemy refers to ‘material assistance’. The offence of sedition is proposed to be renamed ‘urging violence’ and includes urging the overthrow of the Constitution or the government and urging interference in parliamentary elections. These provisions will require an intention that force or violence will be used. Also proposed is a new offence of urging the use of force or violence against a group distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion. There is a lesser offence if the force does not threaten the ‘peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth’. The defence of acts done in good faith is clarified by making it relevant that acts were done in the context of artistic work, genuine academic or scientific discourse or in the dissemination of news or current affairs. It is proposed to repeal the offences relating to unlawful associations. These are claimed to be outdated and subsumed by the terrorist organisation laws.

Amendments to the definition of a terrorist act are proposed to include the UN as a target of the act. The definition of the harm intended to be caused by a terrorist act is extended to include psychological harm. A new offence of committing a terrorist hoax is proposed, with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years. The offence of advocating the doing of a terrorist act will be amended to provide that the prosecution must establish that there is a substantial risk that it would lead another person to commit a terrorist act. This is consistent with the concept of risk elsewhere in the Criminal Code. The offence of providing support to a terrorist organisation is clarified to mean ‘material support’. I would like to acknowledge at this point that the former Attorney-General the honourable member for Berowra was very proactive when dealing with these issues.

Amendments to the Crimes Act are proposed which are said to arise from recent operational experience. The division relating to powers of detention will be separated into two subdivisions to deal with terrorism and non-terrorism offences. In the case of terrorism offences, the maximum length of time that a person can be detained during an investigation period is proposed at seven days and 20 hours. The provisions relating to re-entry under an existing search warrant will be amended to permit re-entry within one hour in normal circumstances and 12 hours in an emergency situation. In addition, it is proposed that entry without warrant will be permitted in emergency situations when investigating terrorism. It is proposed that there be a right of appeal both to prosecutors and to defendants against bail decisions if there are exceptional circumstances.

I turn to the listing and proscription of terrorist organisations. Minor amendments are proposed to provide for listing if the minister is satisfied that the prescribed matters are on reasonable grounds. Listings are to be renewed every three years. As mentioned in the bill’s explanatory memorandum, currently under subsection 102.1(3) of the Criminal Code the listing of an organisation ceases to have effect two years after its commencement or if the Attorney-General ceases to be satisfied that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, whichever comes first. The purpose of the automatic expiration is to ensure that, if the government wishes to continue the proscription, the Attorney-General has considered afresh all the relevant information and is satisfied that there is sufficient factual basis to justify the proscription for a further period. The proposed amendments will provide that a regulation proscribing an entity as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code will automatically expire on the third anniversary of the day on which it took effect. This is consistent with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In its inquiry into the proscription of terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, the committee, which is responsible for reviewing all listings of terrorist organisations, concluded that extending the period of a listing regulation from two to three years would offer adequate oversight.

The purpose of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act is to protect information from disclosure in federal criminal proceedings and civil court proceedings where the disclosure would be likely to prejudice Australia’s national security. The act has been invoked some 38 times, and the experience informs some relatively minor amendments, principally to clarify that notification should be made to a party’s legal representatives and to streamline the definition of situations in which disclosure will be permitted. In some situations, answers to questions in court may be in writing.

I turn now to the second bill that we are debating concurrently today, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. The establishment of the committee was a proposal of the discussion paper on proposed reforms to counterterrorism and national security legislation. The proposed committee will replace and extend the functions of the current Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. The principal extension is the inclusion of the Australian Federal Police. The committee will be asked to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and to report on any desirable changes to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the ACC and the AFP. It will also inquire into any question in connection with its functions that is referred to it by either house of parliament. The coalition strongly believes that governments have a responsibility to do everything possible to improve national security to deal with potential threats to Australia. Waiting for a terrorist attack to occur is unacceptable. It is integral that this package of reforms delivers strong laws that protect our safety while at the same time preserve the democratic rights that protect our freedoms. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on both the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010two bills that I strongly believe contribute to a well-balanced response to the issues of a just and secure environment for our people. I had the opportunity to speak on these bills during the last parliament. As you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, prior to parliament being prorogued, this matter proceeded through the House. My support for the intentions underpinning both of these bills has not changed.

In today’s rapidly changing world, one of the most important issues is the security of our people and, as such, national security itself. The responsibility for a nation’s government to protect its land and its citizens is the most paramount responsibility in the hands of all governments. The proposed amendments included in this package of reforms are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our counterterrorism laws are precise and appropriately tailored and that our new law enforcement and security agencies have the investigative tools they need to counter terrorism. Additionally, the purpose of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill is to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which will replace the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. The new committee will be responsible for the oversight of not only the Australian Crime Commission but also the Australian Federal Police. Notably, this is a significant change agreed to by the government previously. The new committee will have oversight of both of our premier law enforcement bodies.

Many of the amendments in both bills are the result of recommendations of various independent and bipartisan reviews that were designed to improve the practical operations of the law. The reviews include, but are certainly not limited to, the Clarke inquiry into the matter of Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the review of security and counterterrorism legislation. Public consultation also played a significant part in the shaping of these bills. It was encouraging to see a meaningful level of participation by relevant stakeholders. We take these comments and suggestions seriously and, as you will see, they have certainly found their way into the legislation. Indeed, this is important because we as a government must ensure that our counterterrorism laws are properly understood in our communities and are appreciably consistent with community principles.

As I said, we did consult. Two of the stakeholders that made major contributions in terms of these matters were the Police Federation of Australia and the Australian Federal Police Association. They lobbied very strongly to ensure that there was oversight for not only the Australian Crime Commission but also the Australian Federal Police. One might ask why unions responsible for officers of the Australian Federal Police would seek to do that. I would offer this explanation on their behalf: they believe in their professionalism as police officers and their commitment to ensuring the professional operation of their organisation and in being able to demonstrate that they operate to the letter of the law. Those submissions were made by the representative bodies for police officers. The question was raised as to whether those sorts of organisations would seek to have that level of oversight. They not only agreed to it but sought this change. That is indicative of the way those organisations are run in looking after the professional interests of police officers in this country.

I will now take a little bit of time to go through some of the aspects contained in the bills. The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill contains amendments to treason and sedition offences in the Criminal Code. The government accepted the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission report, which included removing the term ‘sedition’ and replacing it with the phrase ‘urging violence’ and clarifying and modernising elements of the offences. The bill also extends the offence to cover urging violence against a group or individual on the basis of national or ethnic origin in addition to race, religion, nationality or political opinion.

The bill amends the definition of ‘advocates’ in the Criminal Code to clarify that an organisation advocates the doing of a terrorist act if the organisation directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a substantial risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person to engage in a terrorist act. This is necessary because currently an organisation may be listed as a terrorist organisation only if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the organisation advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

The bill also extends the period of a regulation that lists a terrorist organisation from two to three years. Currently under the Crimes Act it is clear that an arrested person may be detained, prior to being brought before a magistrate or other judicial officer, for the purpose of investigating whether that person committed an offence for which they were arrested or for the purpose of investigating whether the person committed another Commonwealth offence that an official suspects them of committing. The amendments in this bill will clarify and improve the practical operation of part 1C of the Crimes Act to address issues that were raised in the Clarke inquiry into the Dr Haneef matter.

The Crimes Act does not currently provide police with the power to enter premises without a warrant in emergency circumstances relating to terrorism offences where there is material that may pose a risk to public health and safety. I know that has been spoken about in this place on a number occasions when there are extraordinary circumstances. Circumstances when police do need to enter premises include when they need to secure issues that may relate not only to terrorism but also the product of what they may be doing, whether it be bomb making or other things, to actually secure premises to protect the public. This bill will make it abundantly clear and will provide new power for police to enter premises without a warrant in those emergency circumstances.

Further, the time available for law enforcement officers to re-enter premises under a search warrant can be extended by 12 hours or, where authorised by an issuing authority in exceptional circumstances, a longer period. Again, this is to have regard to the fact that not everything is being done simply to collect evidence. Some of those issues of re-entry could be very much in relation to ensuring the protection of the community and the health and safety of residents, et cetera, and therefore those flexibilities are built into this legislation. This amendment is necessary as the time limitation does not provide sufficient scope for police to re-enter premises if they need to evacuate the premises because they have discovered, for example, something that may endanger the life and safety of police officers. As a consequence, delay in the period of the warrant has been occasioned.

The bill also gives the Prime Minister the ability to request the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to any Commonwealth department or agency. This reflects the increasing interaction between a range of Commonwealth departments and agencies and the Australian intelligence community on intelligence and security matters.

As I said earlier, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010 will also improve oversight of the Australian Federal Police by establishing the new committee on law enforcement. This committee will replace and extend the functions of the current Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, of which I have been a member ever since I came to this parliament some 5½ years ago. The Joint Committee on Law Enforcement will be responsible for providing broad parliamentary oversight of the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission.

Again, it is important to note that the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement implements the government’s election commitment to improve oversight of the Australian Federal Police. Finally, The Australian government remains conscious of the need to protect our community from the threat of terrorism without unnecessarily encroaching on the individual rights and liberties that are fundamental to our democratic system and way of life.

In introducing measures which will clarify the operation of the laws and bolster existing safeguards and accountability mechanisms, the government is able to ensure that laws remain responsive to human rights and the fundamental freedoms that we enjoy. I am confident that this package of reforms that has been framed following extensive consultation, which I referred to earlier, will go a long way to helping us meet the problematic issue that confronts modern nations—that is, national security challenges. I commend the bill to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was listening to the member for Fowler concluding his contribution, I began to think that it has been a little bit more than 10 years since I finished my role as one of the operations majors with the Australian Army for Joint Task Force Gold, Joint Task Force 112, which had responsibility during the Olympic Games in Sydney for counterterrorism security in Sydney. In the intervening 10-year period, if I had not been elected to this place perhaps I would have been wasting a fair bit of my time since then. Fortunately, I have the honour of serving here now.

When I think back to those days working on the Olympics for over two years, and the exercises that we undertook and the threats that we planned to counter, I realise how fascinating I have always found security matters. Although I served in the Australian Federal Police for a couple of years before I joined the Army, and then served 15 years in the Army, I have always found matters to do with security particularly fascinating and interesting. So I am glad to be able to stand up and make a contribution on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010.

I would like to begin by speaking on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill. I understand that many of the amendments arose from reviews and inquiries that have taken place over the past three years. National security is, of course, very serious business and, when faced with an immediate threat, a government must immediately respond. Consequently it is right to review legislation further down the track to ensure that the balance between safety and security and rights and liberties is appropriate. We should recall that in the last 10 years there have been a number of significant events that have demonstrated to us that this nation is not immune from the impacts of terrorism and that national security is a consideration despite the air-sea gap around our island continent.

In the year 2000 we had the highly successful Olympic Games—which I have mentioned—in Sydney, with a number of events, such as the football, in other places. The games were a magic moment for our country, with no security incidents. However, on 11 September 2001, just a bit more than 12 months later, terrorism struck our close ally, the United States of America, and thousands of people lost their lives, including 10 Australian citizens. This attack showed that the attack on civilian targets was very much on the agenda for al-Qaeda and served as a warning for the future, even for us here in Australia. Again, it was just over a year later, on 12 October 2002, that 202 people, including 88 Australians, were killed when Jemaah Islamiah, a radical Islamic terrorist group, bombed the Kuta district of Bali. Clearly there could be no doubt that Australians were being specifically targeted and therefore at a far higher risk than we may have considered we were facing in the past.

On 5 August 2003 the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta was the subject of another bomb which killed 12 and injured 150. The link between the 2002 Bali bombing and the 2003 Marriott bombing attacks was Hambali, said to be al-Qaeda’s man in South-East Asia. Also—and we should note this as well—he had been working on al-Qaeda’s anthrax program. On 9 September 2004 a bomb located in a van was detonated outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, killing either nine or 11 people nearby, depending on the reports of either Indonesian or Australian sources at the time. On 1 October 2005, 26 people were killed when bombs were exploded in two locations in Bali. Three explosions took place and three unexploded bombs were later found. Again, Bali is noted as being extremely popular with Australians and this attack was clearly intended, in part at least, to kill and injure Australians.

I also note that the United Kingdom was subject to terrorist attacks on the public transport system in 2005 and 2007, which demonstrated the risks of home-grown terrorism, or attacks on the nation by those who are actually citizens of that nation or at least residents. On 17 July 2009, the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta was again bombed, with the loss of nine lives, several of which were Australian—and we have made comment on that before in the parliament. It was a matter of just weeks later when five Australian citizens, four of Somalian origin and one Lebanese man, were arrested for plotting an attack on the Holsworthy Army Base in Sydney. The fact that those who seek to come here and not stay in their original country and then find such fault with that country that they wish to carry out terrorist attacks is a phenomenon that is increasingly facing the wider Western world. Indeed, there have been cases of native-born people and, for all intents and purposes, people of Anglo-Saxon origin, who have also taken up violence. It is therefore essential that laws be enacted first and foremost to provide sufficient protection to the general population. However, as I said before, it is right that such laws be the subject of review, and so it is that we find ourselves with this legislation before the House. Indeed, apart from the external parliamentary reviews over the last three years, this year the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee saw changes to the legislation from what was introduced into parliament earlier in the year.

In the case of this bill it is my view that the seven main amendments that it contains fundamentally represent procedural changes, and I really do not find any great strengthening in the laws from what is proposed. Indeed, I would say that the strengthening that is mentioned in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech about entering premises without a warrant is confined to emergency circumstances. I believe that the really strong laws were introduced by the former government. On the soft side, there have been changes to the period of investigation—detention being reduced to seven days and some hours. While I personally feel that this change is unwise, I understand that the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission support such a change, and I appreciate their expert view on this matter. We will see how that will turn out in the longer term.

On the high side, I am glad that the government have not introduced this bill with the proposal in the discussion paper to provide detention as an option only on the basis of reasonable belief. Instead, thankfully, they have left the standard as ‘on suspicion’. We would all be aware that the vast majority of Australians supported these laws when they were first brought into parliament by the last government, as most Australians desire protection and would say, ‘If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.’ While I am not as confident as the minister that the safety of Australian people is best provided for in these amendments, we are supporting the bill as it is drafted, and it is worthy to remember that the laws that were introduced by the last government, in essence, remain strong.

In making comments on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010, I would say that, as it is proposed that I will be a member of the new committee, I look forward to its operation. As we know, it will be established because of the outcomes of the discussion paper on proposed reforms to the counterterrorism and national security legislation. The committee will replace and extend many of the functions of an existing parliamentary joint committee, and I look forward to the committee’s oversight being extended to the Australian Federal Police. Clearly I share the view that the Australian Federal Police must be able to do its job, and we as a parliament, particularly this new committee, should ensure that the AFP’s structures, functions, procedures and powers are modified as required to reflect changes in trends of criminal activities. I look forward to this opportunity to serve on the committee and fully support the passage of this bill.

To conclude, I would say that strong and effective laws to protect national security were delivered by the Howard government, and they were borne out of the serious and threatening circumstances of the time. The risk remains with us right now, and in the future we should exercise extreme caution before we retreat from them, as I believe that the safety of citizens depends on this parliament always having the right laws in place.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the former speaker for his contribution to the debate and I rise, obviously, to speak in support of the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. I understand these bills have already passed the House of Representatives but lapsed when the 42nd Parliament was dissolved. Nevertheless, I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak on these bills, which work together to improve transparency, accountability and public safety.

Terrorism and organised crime pose a great challenge to all modern democracies. We heard this today in Prime Minister Gillard’s opening remarks in the debate about the war in Afghanistan and Australia’s involvement in that. All governments face a great challenge to protect their citizens. In fact, when all is said and done, perhaps our greatest fundamental responsibility as a government, as a federal government particularly, is to ensure that Australians can sleep safe and sound in their beds at night. And that means that the Gillard Labor government gives our law enforcement agencies the powers they need to defeat terrorism and organised crime and provide comfort to all Australians. However, in doing this we must uphold our ideals of a democracy and freedom or we will destroy the country that we are elected to protect.

The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 implements a number of improvements to antiterrorism laws. This is part of the Gillard Labor government’s response to independent and bipartisan reviews of Australian national security and counterterrorism legislation. It clarifies the operation of treason, sedition and certain terrorism offences in the Criminal Code. The name of sedition offences will be changed to ‘urging violence’, and the events of urging violence against a group on the basis of race, religion, nationality or political opinion will be expanded to cover urging violence or violence on the basis of ethnic or national origin and will be expanded to include urging force or violence against an individual, not just a group. The offence will also now apply where the use of force or violence does not threaten the peace, order and good governance of the Commonwealth.

The bill also implements the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to extend the period of regulation that lists a terrorist organisation from two to three years. Currently organisations may be listed as a terrorist organisation if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the organisation advocates carrying out a terrorist attack. This bill amends the definition ‘advocates’ to include an organisation that directly praises the doing of a terrorist act where there is substantial risk that such praise might lead a person to engage in a terrorist act. This is an important change.

The bill also amends the investigation and retaining powers largely in response to the Clarke inquiry into the shameful case of Dr Mohamed Haneef. Surely all students of justice will remember that this was not justice’s finest hour in Australian history. We all remember when Dr Mohamed Haneef was detained without charge following the London car bomb attacks in 2007. We may never know the full extent of communications between the Federal Police and Scotland Yard. However, I remember the sick feeling in my guts when this Indian doctor, who was working hard for his Australian patients on the Gold Coast, was detained. I had a feeling that he was just not getting a fair go, and I attended public forums in my electorate to express that concern. This bill clarifies that a person always needs to be under a valid state of arrest to be detained under part IC. It also sets a maximum seven-day limit on the amount of time that can be specified by a magistrate and clarifies the procedures that apply when making an application to extend the period of investigation.

As I said from the outset, our laws which protect us from terrorists must not compromise our freedoms. If they ever do so, that is when the terrorists win. So this bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 to give police the power to enter premises without a warrant in emergency circumstances relating to a terrorism offence where there is material that may pose a risk to public health or safety. Police exercising this power do not have the same powers as a general search warrant, and are limited in what they can do once on the premises. This bill also grants the prosecution and the defendant a specific right of appeal against a decision to grant or refuse bail, and this amendment will ensure consistency and clarity across all states and territories.

I turn now to the related bill before the House, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. This bill will improve oversight of the activities of the Australian Federal Police. It does so by establishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which will replace the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. The new committee will continue the work of its predecessor and also provide broad parliamentary oversight of the AFP. The committee will also be expected to examine trends in criminal activities and report on recommendations to improve the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. This parliamentary committee is the appropriate body for the accountability of oversight of this agency and I commend the Attorney-General on this initiative.

We cannot become complacent in the fight against terrorism. That means ensuring our laws protect the community from the threat of terrorism while upholding these important individual rights that stretch back to the Magna Carta and beyond. Through these bills, the Gillard Labor government is demonstrating its commitment to responsive counterterrorism laws with appropriate safeguards and accountability mechanisms. I commend the bill to the House.

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

in reply—I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010, these bills both being introduced for a second time. To address some of the points made in debate, the member for Stirling made some comments about funding for border security and national security agencies. It is of course tremendously important that these agencies be well resourced; ensuring national security is the highest responsibility of any government. I remind honourable members that the Australian government is committed to building a more secure Australia through supporting and resourcing our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, as well as by promoting an international environment that is stable, peaceful and prosperous, and by having a legal structure that is balanced and appropriate.

In terms of resourcing, the Australian government invested over $500 million in additional funding to further strengthen Australia’s national security capacity in this financial year, 2010-11. This $500 million investment is a key part of the first ever coordinated national security budget, which invested a total of $4.3 billion in national security, border protection, aviation security and supporting the Australian Defence Force. In fact, that investment this financial year builds on the $685 million in additional funding that was part of the national security package in the previous financial year, 2009-10. So very considerable funds are being applied to what is an area of priority for this government.

With regard to the specifics of the bills, after extensive consultation these bills were considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and passed by this House before parliament was prorogued on 19 July 2010. The two bills comprise a package of reforms to Australia’s national security and counterterrorism legislation aimed at ensuring our laws are appropriately targeted and also accountable in their operation. The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill will implement the government’s response to several independent and, indeed, bipartisan parliamentary committee reviews of Australia’s national security and counterterrorism legislation. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill will establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which will replace the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. This new committee will be responsible for the oversight of the Australian Crime Commission and also the Australian Federal Police.

I thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its detailed consideration of the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010 when these bills were previously introduced. The government has carefully considered the recommendations made by the Senate committee, and I can inform members that the government accepts or accepts in principle three of the committee’s five key recommendations. In response to recommendation 1, the explanatory memorandum now clarifies the reasons for including the proposed urging violence offences in chapter 5 of the Criminal Code. Recommendations 3 and 5 of the Senate committee were not related to amending legislation but were recommendations the government supports in principle. Recommendation 3 was that the Australian Law Reform Commission conduct an inquiry into the pre-charge detention regime under part IC of the Crimes Act. The government acknowledges that the detention of a person is a very serious matter and, indeed, it was touched on by my colleague the member for Moreton. The government acknowledges that and that it is important that the provisions of part IC be closely monitored to ensure that operationally an appropriate balance between the rights of the arrested person and the needs of law enforcement be maintained. The government is therefore supportive of the spirit and intent of the Senate committee’s recommendation. However, the utility of a public inquiry at this stage the government believes to be questionable, as it would not be able to assess the operational effects of the current amendments. Accordingly, my department will arrange a broader review of the pre-charge detention processes once there has been further operational use of and experience with the provisions.

In recommendation 5 the Senate committee recommended that I provide a ministerial direction or additional material to explain the circumstances in which the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Crime Commission and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police should proactively report matters to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. The government accepts this recommendation in principle as well. Once established, the committee may wish to actively engage with the agencies and outline the types of matters that the committee would like to be kept apprised of. It is open to the new committee in accordance with the normal practices and procedures of parliamentary committees to request regular briefings from the agencies or to make open or specific requests for written submissions from the agencies on matters concerning the performance of the agencies’ functions. The government expects the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission to proactively engage with the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement by keeping the committee apprised of relevant and significant matters that relate to the general performance of the agencies’ functions, and I am committed to taking appropriate steps to ensure this occurs. I have no doubt that the agencies will cooperate in that respect.

The Senate committee’s recommendation 2 has not been accepted, as it is desirable, the government believes, to retain the good faith defence to the urging violence offences. Repealing the good faith defence would remove an explicit legislative confirmation that a court, in considering whether an offence has been committed, may consider any relevant matter and specifically whether the context of the act was in the course of an artistic, academic or journalistic work. It should be noted, however, that the defence is not absolute but goes to the discretion of the court.

Recommendation 4, which relates to the period of specified disregarded time in the investigation of terrorism offences, also has not been accepted, on the basis that a maximum cap of seven days is, the government believes, reasonable and appropriate.

In conclusion, the government is confident that the reforms contained in both bills deliver strong laws that protect our safety while preserving democratic rights and protecting our freedoms consistent with the principles of the rule of law. I thank members for their contribution and I commend these bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.