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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 48 (after line 27), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 9 — Convictions for terrorist offences

Crimes Act 1914

1 At the end of section 19B

Add:

Exception terrorist acts

(5) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply in relation to a charge for an offence against section 101.1 of the Criminal Code (which makes it an offence to engage in a terrorist act within the meaning of Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code).

2 Application of amendment

The amendment made by this Schedule applies in relation to a charge for an offence if the charge is made on or after the commencement of this Schedule.

A 'terrorist act', under section 100.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, is an act or a threat to act intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause; intimidate the public or coerce or influence by intimidation a government; cause death or serious harm, or endanger the life of a person; cause serious property damage; create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public; or seriously interfere with, disrupt or destroy critical infrastructure such as telecommunications or electricity networks.

In Australia right now, a person can actually be found guilty or plead guilty to a terrorist act where they prepared or planned a terrorist act, and yet, under section 19B of the Crimes Act, while there is that guilt, there does not necessarily need to be a conviction. I completely accept and understand the principle of judicial discretion. However, there are some crimes against the nation that are so heinous, so disgusting, so morally depraved, that that discretion must be removed.

We already have a precedent for this. We have in the Migration Act that, if you are found guilty of people-smuggling as an adult, a conviction must be recorded against you. How can it be that we don't have that same rule apply with respect to terrorism? If we truly want to send a very clear message to people in this nation who seek to harm our nation, who in their radical religious ideology or political ideology decide that they are going to commit a terrorist offence and are found guilty of that terrorist offence, surely there must be a conviction. That's not necessarily a custodial sentence. That's saying 'a conviction'.

If we are truly serious about terrorism in our nation, we must draw a line and say, 'There must be a conviction recorded,' because, when a conviction is recorded against your police clearance sheet for a police search, we then provide that information to everyone else in society who needs it. Say that person who's been found guilty of an offence of terrorism goes and works, as I said, in a hospital or an aged-care home, or say maybe they want to work in the NDIS—and goodness knows we've seen enough fraud and bad things in that section! They would walk in with a clean rap sheet. How can that be? How can we say, 'Yes, that's fine; that's normal'? Well, I can tell you: that does not pass the pub test.

Australians expect more from this place. They expect more from their government in protecting them, and in standing and drawing an absolute line against this behaviour.

We saw, last year, the most horrific act against Australians at Bondi. One small thing that we could do from that is to say: 'You know what? If you are found guilty of a terrorism offence in Australia, we are going to treat this seriously. We're going to ensure that a conviction is imposed.' That is what we must do as a nation.

I think this has to be a complete oversight. Maybe that was because we had not had terrorism on our shores. But we do now.

Now, I'm sure the government's probably going to say, 'Well, 19B hasn't been used for a terrorism offence.' But that doesn't mean it won't be. So let's take that away.

Let's put Australians first. Let's put the safety of Australians first. Let's close this loophole now, just like we have for people-smuggling. We expect better, and we must act in this place to create better.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 and to speak in support of the member for Mayo and these very important amendments that she brings to the House, because not only is the member for Mayo an outstanding parliamentarian; the member for Mayo is also a law student. She is a very capable law student who has found an open gate, an open door, a void, in the law. You can see why the member for Mayo has a distinction average in her legal studies, because she's identified this open gate in the law that terrorists are able to walk through.

I think most Australians would think that, if you are found guilty of a terrorist offence in a court of law in this country, there needs to be a conviction recorded. It's a very simple proposition. We are talking about some of the most serious crimes—crimes against our citizens; crimes against our country. Most Australians would think: 'If you're found guilty of terrorism, then you should have the book thrown at you.' And I agree with them. You shouldn't be able to walk out of court without a conviction being recorded. This is about keeping Australians safe and this is about keeping our country safe. If you are found guilty of these extraordinarily serious offences, then you don't just get to walk away. If you're found guilty of a terrorist offence, then you need to wear that; you need to own it. You need to be called a terrorist and identified as a terrorist, because, as the member for Mayo points out, you don't just get to slip away into the wider, law-abiding society without people knowing that you have been found guilty of a terror offence.

So I commend the member for Mayo for bringing these very important amendments, and I would urge all members to support them. I think most right-thinking members of this House could get behind these amendments. I would urge all members of the opposition, the crossbench but also the government to get behind these amendments. Most right-thinking Australians would support them. All law abiding Australians would support them—the very simple proposition that, if you are found guilty, then you get the conviction recorded; you don't get to slip quietly into the night once your day in court is finished. I commend these amendments to the House and I urge all members to support.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the amendments moved by the member for Mayo and the constructive engagement she has had with my office on its substance. The government will not be supporting the amendments. To be clear, the government believes that a conviction for a terrorist act is a very serious matter and should be recorded.

We believe the existing regime is appropriately balanced and targeted. Section 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 requires that, in determining the sentence to be passed in respect of any person for a federal offence, a court must impose a sentence of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence. Among other factors, the court must have regard to the nature and circumstances of the offence. In addition, section 19B of the Crimes Act provides that a court may make an order discharging a person without proceeding to conviction if satisfied that it would be inexpedient to inflict anything other than a nominal punishment or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation. In determining whether to make such an order, the court must have regard to the character and other circumstances of the person, the extent to which the offence is of a trivial nature or the extent to which the offence was committed under extenuating circumstances.

As a reminder, the offence for committing a terrorist act carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In fact, all terrorism offences other than the offences for associating with a terrorist organisation carry a mandatory minimum of six years imprisonment, clearly indicating the inherent seriousness of these offences. Given the seriousness of terrorism offending, it is therefore highly unlikely that an order discharging a person with no conviction could ever be an appropriately severe penalty.

As the member for Mayo has been informed and as she has noted, I am advised that there has never been an order under section 19B to discharge someone from conviction for committing a terrorist act. For these reasons, the government will not be supporting the amendments. But again we note that these matters will be examined by the PJCIS and we look forward to its findings.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question unresolved.

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 1 8 :03