Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019. This bill makes changes that are designed to keep Australians safe. It implements a COAG agreement to ensure a presumption that neither bail nor parole will be granted to those persons who have demonstrated support for, or who have links to, terrorist activity. This decision followed the terrorist attack in Brighton, Victoria in June 2017. The perpetrator of that attack was on parole for state offences and had previously been charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack.

The bill amends the existing presumption against bail in section 15AA of the Crimes Act so that it covers persons charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence. In addition, the bill introduces a presumption against parole for a broader group of offenders, including persons charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence; persons who are the subject of a control order; and persons who have made statements or carried out activities supporting, or advocating support for, terrorist acts. This will further protect the wider community and ensure that individuals are not prematurely released on parole.

The bill also amends section 19AG of the Crimes Act to require a court, when sentencing a terrorist offender who is under the age of 18, to fix a non-parole period of three-quarters of the head sentence unless the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to justify a shorter non-parole period. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court must have regard to the protection of the community as the paramount consideration and the best interests of the child as a primary consideration.

Many submitters expressed concerns about this amendment, noting Australia's responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or the CRC, and the recommendation by the INSLM that section 19AG should not apply to children. With respect to those arguments, coalition members of the committee were of the view that the paramount duty of the parliament is to keep its citizens as safe as possible from external and internal threats.

While international treaties are persuasive in developing public policy, they should not be simply adopted where their application could prejudice the parliament's duty to its citizens and thus undermine Australia's sovereignty. Furthermore, the CRC was ratified some 29 years ago, and, whilst child terrorism was not unknown at that time, counterterrorism was not a policy imperative at that time.

This echoes the comments of Prime Minister Scott Morrison in his Lowy speech on 3 October 2019, which I quote now:

We should avoid any reflex towards a negative globalism that coercively seeks to impose a mandate from an often ill defined borderless global community. And worse still, an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy.

Globalism must facilitate, align and engage, rather than direct and centralise. As such an approach can corrode support for joint international action.

Only a national government, especially one accountable through the ballot box and the rule of law, can define its national interests. We can never answer to a higher authority than the people of Australia.

I and coalition members of the committee affirm and support this sentiment from the Prime Minister.

Schedule 2 of the bill provides that exculpatory material does not need to be included in a continuing detention order application where the material would be the subject of a claim for public interest immunity. The committee has recommended amendments so that the onus is on the Australian federal police minister to satisfy the court that any excluded exculpatory information is protected by public interest immunity. This addresses the concerns raised by submitters whilst ensuring that the intended aim of the amendment is achieved.

Following the implementation of this recommendation, the committee strongly recommends that the bill be passed. I commend the report to the House.

See this speech in context