Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee concerning the re-listing of terrorist organisations and I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

I present the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on a review of the re-listing of seven terrorist organisations.

The Committee first considered the listing of these organisations in 2005.

The inquiry was advertised in the Australian newspaper on 18 April 2007 and information regarding the inquiry was then placed on the Committee’s website.  No submissions were received from the public.  In the absence of submissions and, given that these are second re-listings of organisations, which did not raise controversial issues, the Committee resolved to assess the merits of the re-listings on the papers without holding a hearing.

The seven organisations covered by this review are diverse in their geographical location ranging from the EIJ which began in Egypt to organisations that began in Yemen, in Lebanon, in Pakistan, in Iraq and in Uzbekistan.

The EIJ, members of which have been dispersed from Egypt, became central to the development of Al-Qa’ida through the role of Ayman Al-Zawahiri.  To some extent its existence is not easily separable from that of Al-Qa’ida.  As the report notes, quoting the US State Department:

[There have been] no activities in Egypt after 1993 and no international acts after the disrupted attack in 1998.

However, Janes’ believes that EIJ leader (Al Zawahiri) ‘remains a potent symbol of resistance for thousands of sympathisers across the world’ and that ‘numerous cells remain at large.’

Ansar al Sunna is active in Iraq as part of the insurgency there. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jaish-e-Mohammad are both part of the dispute over the IAK or Indian Administered Kashmir. Jaish-e-Mohammad is described as ‘active, well resourced, well trained and motivated’. Many of the regional organisations are, despite splintering and disagreements, connected. Asbat al Ansar operates in Southern Lebanon, but has begun to support the insurgency in Iraq.  The Islamic Army of Aden seeks the overthrow of the local government and the establishment of an Islamic state and the release of prisoners from Yemeni gaols; however, the statement of reasons attributes little activity to it in recent times and its leader, in 2003, cooperated with authorities and received a presidential pardon.

Many of these organisations with their separate objectives, nevertheless, appear to have developed links.  The Committee concluded that:

All of these organisations have been localised groups growing out of specific grievances or particular conflicts.  For most, it has been the advent of the war on terrorism that has extended their reach and their objectives – to the establishment of a regional caliphate, to providing fighters into other fields of battle, to cross funding through the al-Qa’ida network.  Individual conflicts are now seen as part of a larger conflict and they appear to feed on and re-enforce each other, bringing experience and skill learned in one place to other disputes.  And, with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the focus has broadened from opposition to local ‘apostate’ governments to a larger enemy in the West.

The Committee concluded that, if this is the case, proscription could play only a limited role and that other approaches such as the settlement of longstanding disputes might more effectively undermine support for the violence that has become part of these disputes.

Nevertheless, each organisation met the definition of a terrorist organisation in the Criminal Code.

Therefore the Committee concluded, on the basis of the Statement of Reasons and other open source information, that it would not recommend disallowance of any of the organisations.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the Committee who continue to undertake their duties in a bipartisan fashion and who recognise the need to put the national interest and effective Parliamentary scrutiny of highly sensitive matters before any partisan political interests.  The work of the Committee continually presents the members with the challenge of reconciling the demands of national security with Parliamentary and public scrutiny.

I recommend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.