Tuesday, 23 July 2019
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019, Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019; Consideration in Detail
by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (40) together:
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 14 to 17), omit the paragraph beginning "The Minister may make", substitute:
An issuing authority, on application by the Minister, may make an order (called a temporary exclusion order) that prevents a person from entering Australia for a specified period, which may be up to 2 years. An order cannot be made unless certain criteria are met, and it can be revoked.
(2) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 18 to 22), omit the paragraph beginning "The Minister must refer".
(3) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 6 and 7), omit "and is satisfied of specified matters", substitute ", is satisfied of specified matters and an issuing authority has approved the conditions".
(4) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 19), after the definition of Australian travel document, insert:
interim temporary exclusion order means an order made under subsection 12A(1).
issuing authority means a person appointed under section 23.
(5) Clause 4, page 3 (line 23), omit the definition of reviewing authority.
(6) Clause 4, page 3 (line 25), omit "subsection 10(1)", substitute "subsection 10(2)".
(7) Clause 8, page 5 (line 6), before "A person", insert "(1)".
(8) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) The fault element for paragraph (1) (a) is knowledge.
(9) Heading to clause 10, page 6 (line 4), omit "Making", substitute "Applying for, and making,".
(10) Clause 10, page 6 (line 5) to page 7 (line 21), omit subclauses 10(1) to (5), substitute:
(1) The Minister may apply to an issuing authority for a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person only if:
(a) subsection (3) applies in relation to the person; and
(b) the Minister meets the requirements of subsections (4), (5) and (5A).
(2) An issuing authority may make a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person only if:
(a) subsection (3) applies in relation to the person; and
(b) the issuing authority meets the requirements of subsections (4), (5) and (5A).
(3) This subsection applies to a person if:
(a) the person is located outside Australia; and
(b) the person is an Australian citizen; and
(c) the person is at least 14 years of age; and
(d) a return permit is not in force in relation to the person.
(4) The Minister or issuing authority meets the requirements of this subsection if the Minister or issuing authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that making the order would substantially assist in one or more of the following:
(a) preventing a terrorist act;
(b) preventing training from being provided to, received from or participated in with a listed terrorist organisation;
(c) preventing the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, a terrorist act;
(d) preventing the provision of support or resources to an organisation that would help the organisation engage in an activity described in paragraph (a) of the definition of terrorist organisation in subsection 102.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
(5) The Minister or issuing authority meets the requirements of this subsection if the Minister or issuing authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the person has:
(a) committed, prepared to commit or instigated a terrorist act; or
(b) facilitated the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist act; or
(c) given encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist act; or
(d) given support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the person to be involved in conduct falling within paragraph (5) (a).
(5A) The Minister or issuing authority meets the requirements of this subsection if the Minister or issuing authority, before applying for, or making, a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person, has regard to the following:
(a) in a case where the person is 14 to 17 years of age:
(i) the protection of the community as the paramount consideration; and
(ii) the best interests of the person as a primary consideration;
(b) in every case:
(i) whether the person has a lawful right to remain, or to enter and remain, in a country other than Australia during that period;
(ii) if the person has no lawful right to remain, or to enter and remain, in a country other than Australia during that period—the likelihood of the person being detained, mistreated or harmed if the person cannot enter Australia until the end of that period.
(5B) In determining what is in the best interests of a person for the purposes of subparagraph (5A) (a) (ii), the Minister or issuing authority must take into account the following matters:
(a) the age, maturity, sex and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the person;
(b) the physical and mental health of the person;
(c) the benefit to the person of having a meaningful relationship with his or her family and friends;
(d) the right of the person to receive an education;
(e) the right of the person to practise his or her religion;
(f) any other matter the Minister or issuing authority considers relevant.
(11) Clause 10, page 7 (line 22), omit "the Minister", substitute "the issuing authority".
(12) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraph 10(6) (i), substitute:
(i) state the judicial review rights in relation to the decision to make the order and any related return permit; and
(j) state the grounds for deciding that the criteria in subsection (2) for the making of the order have been met (excluding any information that is likely to prejudice national security).
(13) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are, in the opinion of the Minister,", substitute "the issuing authority must provide a copy of the order to the Minister and the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are".
(14) Page 8 (after line 21), after clause 10, insert:
10A Contents of applications for a temporary exclusion order
An application by the Minister under subsection 10(1) for a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person must:
(a) be made either:
(i) in writing (other than writing by means of an electronic communication); or
(ii) if the Minister considers it necessary because of urgent circumstances, orally in person or by telephone, or by fax, email or other electronic means of communication; and
(b) set out the facts and other grounds on which the Minister considers the temporary exclusion order should be made; and
(c) specify the period for which the temporary exclusion order should remain in force and set out the facts and other grounds on which the Minister considers that the order should remain in force for that period; and
(d) set out the information that the Minister has about the person's age; and
(e) set out the outcomes and particulars of all previous applications for temporary exclusion orders made in relation to the person; and
(f) set out the outcomes and particulars of all previous applications for variations of temporary exclusion orders made in relation to the person; and
(g) set out the outcomes of all previous applications for revocations of temporary exclusion orders made in relation to the person; and
(h) set out any other matter the Minister considers relevant.
(15) Clause 11, page 8 (line 23), after "The Minister", insert "or an issuing authority".
(16) Clause 11, page 8 (line 25), after "the Minister's", insert "or the issuing authority's".
(17) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 29), after subclause 11(2), insert:
(2A) If an issuing authority revokes a temporary exclusion order under subsection (1), the issuing authority must notify the Minister as soon as practicable after revoking the order.
(18) Clause 11, page 8 (line 31) to page 9 (line 1), omit "the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are, in the opinion of the Minister,", substitute "or being notified of the revocation of a temporary exclusion order under subsection (2A), the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are".
(19) Clause 11, page 9 (line 9), after "the Minister", insert "or issuing authority".
(20) Clause 12, page 9 (after line 19), after subclause 12(1), insert:
(1A) As soon as practicable after an application is made under subsection (1), the Minister or Department must provide a copy of the application to the issuing authority who made the temporary exclusion order, or if the issuing authority is unavailable, another issuing authority.
(1B) If the Minister or Department gives a copy of the application to another issuing authority, the Minister or Department must cause such steps to be taken as are necessary to ensure that the other issuing authority has all the information that the issuing authority who issued the temporary exclusion order had when the order was issued.
(21) Page 10 (after line 15), after clause 12, insert:
12A Interim temporary exclusion orders
(1) If the Minister is satisfied that, because of urgent circumstances, it is necessary that a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person comes into force immediately, the Minister may make an order (an interim temporary exclusion order) under this subsection.
(2) The Minister must not make an interim temporary exclusion order under subsection (1) in relation to a person unless:
(a) subsection 10(3) applies in relation to the person; and
(b) the Minister meets the requirements of subsections 10(4), (5) and (5A).
(3) If the Minister makes an interim temporary exclusion order, the Minister must, as soon as practicable, apply for a temporary exclusion order in relation to the person under subsection 10(1).
(4) For the purposes of applying the other provisions of this Act in relation to an interim temporary exclusion order until a decision is made on the related application under subsection (3) of this section:
(a) the interim temporary exclusion order is taken to be a temporary exclusion order made under subsection 10(2); and
(b) any reference to an issuing authority is taken to be a reference to the Minister.
(22) Clause 13, page 10 (line 16) to page 11 (line 5), omit clause 13, substitute:
13 Period for which a temporary exclusion order etc. is in force
(1) A temporary exclusion order in relation to a person comes into force immediately after an issuing authority makes the temporary exclusion order in relation to the person.
(2) A temporary exclusion order in relation to a person remains in force until the earlier of the following occurs:
(a) the period specified for the purposes of paragraph 10(6) (d) ends;
(b) the order is revoked under section 11.
(3) An interim temporary exclusion order comes into force immediately after the Minister makes the interim temporary exclusion order in relation to the person.
(4) An interim temporary exclusion order in relation to a person remains in force until the earlier of the following occurs:
(a) an issuing authority makes a decision on the related application made by the Minister under subsection 12A(3);
(b) the Minister issues a return permit to the person under subsection 15(1).
(23) Clause 14, page 11 (line 6) to page 13 (line 26), omit the clause.
(24) Clause 15, page 14 (line 10), omit the note, substitute:
Note 1: See section 18 for how an application for a return permit can be made.
Note 2: There are judicial review rights in relation to decisions under this subsection.
(25) Clause 15, page 14 (lines 19 to 25), omit "within a reasonable period" (wherever occurring), substitute "as soon as practicable".
(26) Clause 16, page 17 (lines 7 to 10), omit subclause 16(7).
(27) Clause 16, page 17 (line 14), omit "(to the extent known to the Minister)".
(28) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 22), after subclause 16(8), insert:
(8A) Before the Minister imposes a condition mentioned in subsection (9) or (10) on a return permit, the Minister must request, in writing, the approval of an issuing authority to impose the condition.
(8B) A request under subsection (8A) must set out the facts and other grounds on which the Minister considers the condition should be imposed on the return permit.
(8C) In considering whether to approve the condition, subsections 16(3) to (8) are taken to apply to the issuing authority in the same way as those subsections apply in relation to the Minister.
(8D) To avoid doubt, the Minister must not impose the condition if the issuing authority does not approve the condition.
(29) Clause 17, page 20 (lines 18 and 19), omit ", in the opinion of the Minister,".
(30) Clause 17, page 20 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:
(7) Subsections 16(3) to (8D) are taken to apply to a decision under subparagraph (1) (a) (i) of this section to vary the period during which the permit is in force in the same way as those subsections apply to a condition imposed on a permit under that section.
(31) Clause 20, page 22 (after line 32), at the end of clause 20, add:
(3) The fault element for paragraph (1) (a) is knowledge.
(32) Heading to clause 23, page 25 (line 3), omit "Reviewing authority", substitute "Issuing authority".
(33) Clause 23, page 25 (line 5) to page 26 (line 2), omit "a reviewing authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "an issuing authority".
(34) Clause 23, page 26 (lines 3 to 8), omit "reviewing authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "issuing authority".
(35) Clause 23, page 26 (line 10), omit "A reviewing authority", substitute "An issuing authority".
(36) Heading to clause 24, page 26 (line 14), omit "a reviewing authority", substitute "an issuing authority".
(37) Clause 24, page 26 (line 16), omit "a reviewing authority", substitute "an issuing authority".
(38) Clause 25, page 27 (line 13), omit "making", substitute "applying for".
(39) Clause 30, page 28 (line 24) to page 29 (line 3), omit the clause.
(40) Clause 31, page 29 (lines 12 to 16), omit paragraphs 31(2) (c) and (d).
These amendments to the Temporary Exclusion Orders bill ensure that the bill conforms to the unanimous and bipartisan recommendations of Labor and government members of the intelligence committee—no more, no less. It is extremely disappointing that the Minister for Home Affairs has come into this House and continued with his false assertion that the government is agreeing to all but two of the committee's 19 recommendations. In fact, there are 10, or possibly 11, of the unanimous recommendations of the committee that have not been agreed to by the government. And it is also disappointing that the minister asserted just a moment ago that if the government were to agree to the amendments recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, it would somehow increase the risk of terrorism in the community. He hasn't explained that assertion. It is a baseless assertion. It is not one we heard from the intelligence agencies or the Australian Federal Police during the course of the hearings of the intelligence committee.
I will just go through each of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that the government has failed to implement, and set out how we've sought to give effect to the recommendations—which, I would stress again, were made jointly by six Liberal senators and House members of the committee and five Labor members of the committee on a unanimous basis. It's disappointing, indeed, that we haven't seen the member for Canning, the chair of the committee, even attempt to defend the unanimous recommendations that the committee he chaired made.
The first recommendation goes to recommendation 1, and amendment (10) relates to that. That first recommendation of the committee was to amend the bill to require the minister, before making a temporary exclusion order that requires the person to surrender their Australian passport or to be prevented from applying for obtaining a new Australian passport, to have regard, to the extent that that information is available, to (1) whether the person has a lawful ability to stay in their current location for the duration of the order; (2) whether the person has a lawful ability to enter a third country—for example, due to holding a passport or residency visa for that third country—and (3) the likelihood of the person being detained, mistreated or harmed if the person has no lawful ability to stay in their current location and no lawful ability to enter a third country for the duration of the order.
The government claims that it has implemented this recommendation, but that is not proved. The purpose of the recommendation is absolutely clear. It's self-explanatory. You'd think the government would have instantly embraced this recommendation—which, like all the other recommendations made by the committee, is a practical recommendation, one which makes the bill more workable. The government's amendments say that the minister should consider those matters before imposing a condition on a return permit. The committee's specific recommendation was that the matters I've just gone through have to be considered before the minister imposes a temporary exclusion order.
Was this a mistake? Is there some reason the government says those matters shouldn't be considered before the minister issues a temporary exclusion order? Does the government even understand the difference between a return permit and a temporary exclusion order? We don't know the answer to those questions, because instead of engaging with Labor, instead of engaging with the parliament, instead of doing this in a public and appropriate manner the government has falsely claimed that it has implemented the first recommendation of the committee. That is, in a very literal sense, not true. Amendment (10) would implement the committee's recommendation as it was made.
Recommendation 2 is dealt with in amendment (25). The second recommendation of the committee was to amend the bill to require the minister to give a return permit to a person as soon as practicable upon receipt of an application or when a person is to be deported to Australia. The bill as presented to the parliament amends the previous version of the bill so that the minister is only required to give a return permit within a reasonable period. 'As soon as practicable' is not the same test— (Time expired)
as 'within a reasonable period'. We saw earlier this week the Minister for Home Affairs—this same Minister for Home Affairs—table a report on the retention of metadata by agencies between July 2016 and June 2017. Presumably this minister believes that tabling a report two years late is within a reasonable period. Labor does not. That's why not only did the Labor members but also the government members of the intelligence committee unanimously recommend that the appropriate amendment to be made to this legislation was to require that a return permit be given as soon as practicable upon receipt of an application. So, amendment (25) that's before the House implements the committee's second recommendation by requiring the minister to give a return permit as soon as practicable.
I come now to recommendations 3 and 12 made by the Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security. They're dealt with in amendment (10). The third and 12th recommendations of the committee would have seen the bill amended to prevent the making of a temporary exclusion order unless the decision-maker reasonably suspects that the person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activities outside Australia and making the order would substantially assist in preventing the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, a terrorist act. Recommendation 12 as made by the committee would have also prevented the minister from acting as nothing more than a rubber stamp for security assessment.
These recommendations were rejected. They have been rejected by the government, and the particular rejection is very telling. Over the last several days, in talking about this bill, the government has said that the targets of this bill are people who have been fighting with groups like the Islamic State group in Syria, but that directly contradicts what the minister's own department, the Department of Home Affairs, told the intelligence committee in public hearings. The department told the committee in the public hearings that any person who is known to have engaged in active fighting in conflict zones in Syria or Iraq or both would not be subject to a temporary exclusion order. Such a person would be allowed to come back to Australia, arrested at the airport, charged, put on trial and held in jail in the meantime while that trial was pending. The government has to be honest and straightforward about what this bill actually does and the problem that it's actually seeking to address. The rejection of this particular proposed amendment—the recommended amendment by the committee—illustrates the fact that, to date, the government has not been open, honest and straightforward about these matters.
As to the second part of these recommendations, which would have prevented the minister from acting as a rubber stamp, we know this Minister for Home Affairs is lazy. We also know that when he's required to make a decision under an act of parliament, he often gets the decision wrong. The host of cases under the Migration Act where this minister's decisions have been set aside by a tribunal or by a court is evidence of that. The Intelligence and Security Committee quite sensibly proposed an amendment that would actually require the minister to turn his mind to the task of issuing an exclusion order. We can understand why this lazy and incompetent Minister for Home Affairs would not like that part of recommendation 12, but the fact that his colleagues would agree to back his position, which is to ignore the recommendations of the intelligence committee to give him a licence to not do his job, is disappointing to say the least.
There's something else about recommendation 12 that I need to mention. The government has repeatedly said that this legislation is based on, and follows, the United Kingdom's law for temporary exclusion orders that the United Kingdom parliament managed to pass in 2015, some four years ago. If ever we wanted better proof of the incompetence of this government in taking four years to bring this legislation to the parliament, it is that they cannot even understand the basis for their own legislation which directly here, in relation to this matter, does not follow the model that has been provided to us by the United Kingdom parliament, in that their legislation directs itself and directs the attention of the issuing authority to whether or not a particular proposed subject for a temporary exclusion order had, in fact, been involved in terrorism activities. (Time expired)
The fourth recommendation of the committee was to amend the bill so that, in determining the best interests of a child before issuing a temporary exclusion order, the minister would have to take into account the child's age, maturity, sex, background, physical and mental health, the right to receive an education and other matters. The government's amendments would allow the minister to be wilfully blind to those matters because they would allow the minister to say, 'Those matters are not relevant.' But the committee's recommendation was that those matters are relevant, that it should not be for the minister to decide whether or not those matters are relevant but, rather, that the act should so provide. Amendment 26 addresses this issue and would implement recommendation 4 in full.
I come to recommendation 5. This fifth recommendation of the committee was to amend the bill to require a temporary exclusion order to set out, first, that the issuing authority is satisfied of the matters mentioned in section 10; second, a summary of the grounds on which the order is made, excluding information that's likely to prejudice national security; and third, the person's rights of review in relation to the order and any return permit that is made. Again, this recommendation was not implemented by the government in the bill that's been brought to the parliament. The bill does not require the temporary exclusion order to state the grounds on which the order is made so that someone who's given an exclusion order would not even know why, nor does it require the order to set out the person's right to review. Amendment (12) in the set before the House would implement this recommendation in full.
I digress to remind the House of the extreme nature of the power with which we are presently dealing. It is a power which Labor accepts should be part of the discretionary armoury, if I can put it like that, available to the government of Australia and its agencies in order to manage the return of Australians to Australia who have been engaged in terrorism activity overseas and who potentially pose some risk to the Australian community. Managing their return is an appropriate matter, but the power is such an extreme one. We can see that the extreme nature of the power has given rise to very serious doubts about the constitutionality of the power, as raised by people as eminent as Mr Arthur Moses, the president of the Law Council, or Professor Helen Irving from the University of Sydney. The government is clearly not even going to engage with that at all, because it's not providing to this parliament any evidence of the constitutionality of the legislation.
It is an extreme power with which we are dealing. The committee's recommendations go to making the exercise of the power appropriately subject to safeguards. It goes to making the exercise of the power more workable. Had the government accepted the recommendations that the committee made, it would have put in place some matters which to me and I think any fair-minded person would seem absolutely self-evident: that an Australian citizen who has been kept from returning to their country—because that is what this power is about—should know the reason why the exclusion order has been made.
I come to recommendation 7; that's the subject of very many of the amendments that are in the set—(10), (14), (17), (20), (22), (28) and (30). This seventh recommendation of the committee was to amend the bill to require a temporary exclusion order, in effect, so that a temporary exclusion order may only be issued by an issuing authority, such as a retired judge, and that an issuing authority must approve conditions in a return permit. Again, this would have brought the bill more in line with the UK legislation, which the government claimed—falsely—their bill is based on. Members opposite—including some of the members opposite who participated in the making of the recommendation, namely the member for Berowra and the member for Canning, the chair of the committee—have sought to mischaracterise this recommendation as it being a recommendation about judicial review. They have then falsely claimed that the government has implemented it in principle.
First, not to get too lawyerly about it, a retired judge is not a member of the judiciary. The clue is in the word retired. The reviewing authority would in fact be a member of the executive. Secondly, the government's bill does not create an issuing authority but would instead create a reviewing authority with extremely limited powers of review. Such an authority would not serve as a check on the power of the minister at all. (Time expired)
To make it worse, the government's amendments give rise to an additional ground of constitutional invalidity. This is a change that the government is itself making between the bill in the form in which it was brought to this place in February and the bill in the form in which it now takes and is before the parliament. That the bill has changed gives rise to an additional ground of constitutional invalidity.
We know from the Law Council and from others that the bill is at serious risk of being unconstitutional because it infringes the constitutional right of abode. In its half-baked and sloppy attempt to implement recommendation 7 'in principle'—because that's the government claim—the government has created an additional constitutional problem because, in one view, the 'reviewing authority', who would be a member of the executive, is purporting to exercise powers that the Constitution vests exclusively in the judiciary. That contravenes the separation of powers, a fundamental principle that this Minister for Home Affairs seems to have little time for. Most of Labor's amendments go to addressing this recommendation—for instance, replacing every use of the words 'reviewing authority' with the words 'issuing authority'. Some of the key substantive amendments that go to this recommendation are amendments (10), (14), (17), (20), (22), (28) and (30).
To implement another part of recommendation 7, amendment (21) would allow the minister to issue an interim temporary exclusion order in urgent circumstances. In those cases, the minister would then have to obtain the approval of the issuing authority as soon as practicable. Again, this was simply a practical suggestion that the committee had put forward and that the government, without explanation, is rejecting.
Recommendation 10 was a very simple recommendation. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to clarify that a person may seek judicial review of a decision of the minister to grant or refuse an application for a return permit. Incredibly, this was rejected by the government on the ground that it was unnecessary. The government has argued it's unnecessary to expressly provide for judicial review in these circumstances by pointing to the fact that a minister must accept an application for a return permit, but again that is not true. Under the bill as presented to this parliament, the minister must give a return permit if a person has applied to the minister in the prescribed form and manner or the person is to be or is being deported to Australia. Implicitly, the minister may refuse to give a return permit if he does not believe the person has applied in an appropriate manner, and the minister may or may not be correct about that. Amendment (24) makes it clear that there are judicial review rights in relation to a decision to grant or refuse an application for a return. This is pretty basic stuff. As with all of the PJCIS recommendations, it would make the bill clearer and more workable, and the government's rejection of this one is inexplicable.
I come to recommendation 11. The committee's 11th recommendation would see the bill amended so that, in any prosecution for a breach of an offence provision under the bill, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the existence of the temporary exclusion order or of the relevant return permit condition as applicable. As a general principle—and I would hope that every single member of this place would absolutely subscribe to this general principle—people should not be prosecuted for breaching an order they are unaware of, especially in circumstances where such an order can be issued on the basis of the minister's belief or satisfaction of certain matters and breach of the order can result in a prison sentence. The government has entirely failed to present a coherent argument as to why that general principle—which, I say again, I would sincerely hope every member of the parliament would agree to—should not be adhered to in these circumstances. While it's true that a person may not be aware of an exclusion order at the time it's issued—because, for example, the person's in a remote location or the government doesn't know where the person is—any such person who tries to return to Australia would presumably be made aware of the order when he or she tries to board a plane, for example. Is the government really saying that a person who is subject to one of these temporary exclusion orders would not be flagged on an airline's computer system? The government has to explain why, in a practical sense, requiring the prosecution to prove actual knowledge of the existence of the order is unworkable; it is not enough just to assert it. That's what the government did in its submission to the intelligence and security committee, and no member of that bipartisan committee, Labor or Liberal, was convinced. That's why the committee unanimously made recommendation 11, which the government is rejecting. Amendment (31) would implement that recommendation of the committee. (Time expired)
So there you have it: nine recommendations of the bipartisan intelligence and security committee that were not implemented by the government and that these amendments that are now before the chamber would implement in full. I would invite the government to agree to these amendments, because all of them improve the legislation that is before the House and all of them are entirely consistent with and fulfilling the recommendations made on a bipartisan basis by six Liberal members of the committee and five Labor members of the committee. It's extremely disappointing that not even those Liberal members of the committee have seen fit to back in the recommendations that they made as recently as April.
Finally, there's a further amendment to the other bill, the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, which I'll move separately. That amendment would implement recommendation 16 of the committee, which the government has also failed to implement, without explanation.