Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet ABCTLAFF1, standing in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 110, page 82 (line 1) to page 85 (line 10), omit sections 119.2 and 119.3.

(2) Schedule 1, item 110, page 92 (line 32), omit "or 119.2".

(3) Schedule 1, item 110, page 82 (line 13), at the end of subsection 119.2(1), add:

  ; and (d) the person enters, or remains in, the area with the intention of engaging in:

     (i) a terrorist act; or

     (ii) a hostile activity; or

     (iii) an activity prescribed by the regulations.

(4) Schedule 1, item 110, page 83 (line 5), after "family member", insert "or friend".

(5) Schedule 1, item 110, page 83 (after line 5), after paragraph (3)(g), insert:

  (ga) making a bona fide visit to a personal or business associate;

  (gb) providing legal advice;

  (gc) performing a bona fide business, teaching or research obligation;

(6) Schedule 1, item 110, page 83 (line 6), at the end of subsection 119.3(3), add:

  ; (i) any other purpose that a court determines is legitimate in all the circumstances.

A number of people that I have spoken to since these laws were first raised are very concerned about the effects of these laws on their legitimate travel plans. If this bill passes as is, it will be a criminal offence to travel. This bill criminalises travel to another country. There are many people in this country who regularly travel overseas to visit acquaintances, to do business, to visit their family. They may be going over to help others who are in strife. They will often go to areas where their family members, friends or business associates live that are areas that they themselves have fled from. These may be countries in Africa, instances of which I and people in my electorate are very familiar with. They will regularly go back to check on people who are in much grimmer situations than us. And that is why they fled in the first place. It may be that they are going for a religious pilgrimage, that they are visiting someone to give legal advice or that they are visiting a business associate. Or it may be that there is some other reason that might be determined to be legitimate in all the circumstances. If this bill goes through, the onus of proof is on them to prove that they have done nothing wrong. If they cannot establish that, they are presumed to have committed an offence.

These amendments put this bill back in line with the ordinary principles of criminal law. It will do so by doing two things. Firstly, these amendments will require that someone who has travelled overseas has done so with the intention to do harm. If someone who has gone overseas for an innocent purpose does not have that intention then they are not presumed to have committed an offence. So it introduces a mental element, as most other crimes have, so that the prosecution will be required to prove that someone went over there with the intention to do us harm. That is simple, fair and something that exists in relation to just about every other offence in this country, as it should in any country that says it cares about the rule of law and that says that the prosecution should have the burden of proving that someone has done something wrong.

These amendments will also extend some legitimate protections to people who go overseas, for example, to visit a business associate, to provide legal advice to someone or to perform a bona fide business, teaching or research obligation. They will allow a court to determine that, in certain situations, the reason for going overseas might have been legitimate in all the circumstances. That is what we should do. We should put the power back in the hands of courts to be able to determine in an individual instance whether or not someone has done something wrong.

The reason this is so critical is that there will be people in this country in their tens of thousands who regularly go overseas to visit someone close to them but who may, when they come back, not have a statutory declaration in their pocket from their business associate or their illiterate grandmother to prove why they went there. If they do not, if they cannot discharge that onus, then at the moment they are presumed to have committed an offence. All of those people who travel innocently and legitimately overseas to areas that, when they leave Australia, they may not even know have been declared a conflict zone—it may happen when they are over there—deserve to have their rights protected.

I do not want to see any more hand wringing from the Labor Party about this, because now you have an opportunity to support our amendment and preserve the rights of people who go overseas for legitimate reasons. The bill is going to pass—we know that—so let's carve out some protections for people who are not doing anything wrong. Let's not make travelling overseas a criminal offence, which is what will happen if these amendments are not passed. I urge the government, who knows that this bill is now going to get through, to protect the right of innocent people by supporting these amendments.

See this speech in context