Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3480 together:

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

(2) Page 56 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Terrorist organisation offences: exceptions for humanitarian aid

Criminal Code Act 1995

1 Subsection 102.1(1) of the Criminal Code

Insert:

designated humanitarian entity: see section 102.1AB.

2 After section 102.1AA of the Criminal Code

Insert:

102.1AB Meaning of designated humanitarian entity

(1) An entity is a designated humanitarian entity if the entity is specified by, or is in a class of entities specified by, the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(2) The following are also designated humanitarian entities:

(a) the United Nations;

(b) an agency of the United Nations;

(c) the International Committee of the Red Cross;

(d) an entity accredited (whether at full or base level) by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the purposes of funding eligibility under the program known as the Australian NGO Cooperation Program;

(e) an entity that operates for the sole or dominant purpose of providing aid of a humanitarian nature.

Note: A list of entities accredited by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the Australian NGO Cooperation Program could in 2025 be viewed on that Department's website (https://www.dfat.gov.au).

3 At the end of section 102.6 of the Criminal Code

Add:

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:

(a) the person's receipt, making available or collection of funds is only for the purpose of providing aid of a humanitarian nature; and

(b) the aid is provided, or to be provided, by, on behalf of, or with the authority of a designated humanitarian entity.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3).

4 At the end of section 102.7 of the Criminal Code

Add:

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:

(a) the person's provision of support or resources is only for the purpose of providing aid of a humanitarian nature; and

(b) the aid is provided, or to be provided, by, on behalf of, or with the authority of a designated humanitarian entity.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3).

This amendment is an important carve-out that ensures humanitarian aid organisations can deliver life-saving aid that is so desperately needed in so many places around the world. Under our current legislation, humanitarian organisations are liable to criminal charges when delivering aid to civilians in regions controlled by proscribed terrorist actors, purely because of geographical proximity.

The unavoidable legal risks and challenges under the current framework have had a very chilling effect on aid delivery, funding and humanitarian organisations' ability to respond to crises. This morning, I was at the ACFID annual conference and heard again loudly and clearly how much the current framework hinders and hampers the delivery of much needed life-saving aid. Aid organisations across the country have been calling for this exemption under the Criminal Code for designated humanitarian entities for years and years. This is an amendment that could make a world of difference for these incredibly courageous humanitarian workers to be able to do their job. It will also bring our laws into line with those that already exist in the US, UK, Canada and the EU.

It also implements a UN Security Council resolution that our government has proudly supported. In fact, the UN Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, which our government has been touting leadership on, both here and abroad, demands this very exemption. Yet, today, from what I understand, the Labor government is going to vote against this amendment. But I guess, sadly, that is exactly what we have come to expect from Labor. They say one thing and do another. They wax lyrical about international law in this chamber and the UN but do nothing. It's time for the Labor government to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. This amendment is one that has previously received bipartisan support in a recommendation in the March 2025 final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It was an inquiry into Australia's thematic sanctions framework. It is disappointing that, despite supporting this amendment and claiming to understand the importance of it for the aid sector, Labor and the coalition will both be voting against it. I cannot tell you how difficult it is to overstate the importance of international aid right now. We are living in increasingly bleak times, with the arms industry recording massive profits steeped in the blood of their war machines as they kill thousands, including aid workers in those thousands. Last year was the deadliest year on record for aid workers, and this year is on track to be even worse. Gaza and Sudan recovered the highest number of deaths. International aid should be a matter of justice. It should neither be dictated by political self-interest nor constrained by sanction regimes.

When operating in the most challenging circumstances that you can imagine and watching the extremes of human suffering, the last time humanitarian organisations and their workers need is to come under fire from indiscriminate Australian laws. Today we have an opportunity to do something that tackles at least one of the challenges aid organisations face. These organisations and their workers put their passion, compassion, hearts, souls and bodies on the line to provide aid for those who are being put through immense suffering.

I will say that I understand that neither of the major parties are going to support this amendment now, but I hope, given the significance of this change and that there has been a bipartisan agreement on making this change, that the government will look at doing this urgently. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faruqi is correct—the government will not be supporting these amendments at this time. I want to put on the record some of the reasons and what the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 does and doesn't do in terms of protections. The Australian government strongly supports the critical work of humanitarian workers in crisis zones around the world, and we are deeply committed to ensuring humanitarian workers are protected and afforded the access that they need to carry out lifesaving work. This is why we led the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, launched in September in New York, with over 100 signatories. We will continue to work across government and with the sector to ensure we can uphold the principles we committed to in the declaration.

The government acknowledges the advocacy of groups such as the Australian Council for International Development and the Save the Children Australia for greater humanitarian exemptions not only in respect of this bill but existing terrorism offences. The government is actively engaging with humanitarian organisations in relation to their concerns with these frameworks and their advocacy for a broad humanitarian exemption. These are complex matters requiring careful consideration, and we must avoid the risk of unintended consequences. The bill directly responds to the highly concerning emergence of the threat of state sponsored terrorism. It is not an appropriate vehicle to consider broader changes to Australia's counter-terrorism framework. Further these amendments propose changes to part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, which is supported by referral powers from the states. Consistent with section 100.8 of the Criminal Code and the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws, the agreement of the first ministers is required to change part 5.3.

It is important to note that the bill contains general defences in relation to individuals performing an official duty or function of the United Nations or the International Committee of the Red Cross. This acknowledges the mandates of these organisations under international law or as multilateral entities, which necessitate their engagement with all state actors. The bill also contains an express humanitarian defence to the offence of associating with a state sponsor of terrorism. This mirrors the existing defence of association with a terrorist organisation contained within part 5.3 of the Criminal Code. We believe any changes to humanitarian exemptions should be consistent across terrorism frameworks.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting that we are approaching the hard marker, I want to very briefly put on record the coalition's position on this amendment. As has been foreshadowed, we will not be supporting Senator Faruqi's amendment here today. We are very sympathetic to the substance of the NGOs' plea that Senator Faruqi alluded to in her contribution on this amendment, and we do urge the government to continue considering how humanitarian organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross and Save the Children can be better protected under the counterterrorism provisions within division 102 and 102A of the Criminal Code. But we do accept the advice that has been provided by the Attorney-General's Department that this bill is not the appropriate place to make those changes. We are incredibly mindful that any amendments, such as this one that was proposed today by Senator Faruqi, should be drafted very carefully to ensure that there are no unintended consequences which may thwart the objects of this bill. As we said in our second reading contributions, this is an incredibly important bill. We want to see this bill pass the Senate today. In the interests of that, the coalition will not be supporting Senator Faruqi's proposed amendment, and I hope we can move things along quickly before 11.15.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just put on the record that it is good to see that both the government and the opposition see the need for these amendments, or amendments to this effect, to come through to ensure that Australian humanitarian organisations have the protection they need. We hear the concerns raised about whether or not the referral from states under part 5.3 would potentially be a barrier and require the consent of state parties who referred those powers to the Commonwealth.

For the record, the humanitarian organisations have been asking for this to be clarified not for weeks or for months but for years, and what I would hope that we get from the government is some clear commitment to a timetable as to when they could expect the goodwill that we hear in the chamber to actually result in the legislative changes. I don't want to go beyond the hard marker, but could we get some short indication from the minister about whether there are processes in place, whether they are engaging with the states, whether there is a timetable and, if not, whether there is a commitment to make that happen? Can we just have that. I know that there are many humanitarian and aid organisations anxiously listening to see if their employees, their boards and others are going to get the protection that they need to do lifesaving work.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The brevity of my answer doesn't indicate the care that we have for this issue, but I think you've seen a willingness from the government and the opposition to consider these further, and we will undertake to do that. I don't have anything to add to my answer other than the broad humanitarian exemption is complex, and that is why we are considering it.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheet 3480 be agreed to.