Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like for many members, it's a privilege to be able to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021, which is of critical importance to the national security of our country.

When it comes to legislation that deals with the challenges of national security, there's generally a good spirit of bipartisan support in this chamber on the simple basis that it's not just an issue on which we have common purpose—and, of course, we should—but also one that is relatively free of the different philosophical divisions between members and what brings them to this chamber. If anything else, if your pursuit of wanting to defend Australia, its interests and the safety and security of its citizens is not part of your core objective and core belief, then the question should be asked: what is it that you are doing here?

In saying that, it doesn't mean that we believe in unlimited restrictions on our liberty or our freedom as a consequence of national security legislation. In fact, I think it's one of the areas in which this parliament can be very proud of its important work in finding that sense of balance. In other countries, including some that are Five Eyes partners or even part of other broader alliances, it isn't always clear that they strike that balance. This is both because they don't start from a position of saying the security and freedom of the individual are of critical importance and because, in the end, they want to seek to empower agencies and government to provide a false assurity because they feel they can justify it as a means to fiddle in the affairs of their citizens.

That is not our way, that will not be our way and that should not be our way. Our balance should be to focus on what we need to do, yes, to keep Australians safe but, critically, to keep them free. It's one of the great principles that underpin the strength of our country. This bill is consistent with that provision because, so often when we seek to introduce legislation that does have a constraint on liberty, often for those who are a target of investigation by our various agencies—from domestic police forces all the way through to agencies that have a broader responsibility beyond our shores—we put in sunset provisions and restrictions which make sure that legislation is reviewed regularly by this parliament. This means there isn't a needless encroachment on people's freedom and, if there is, there's proper accountability. It also addresses the reality that legislation often has to be reviewed against the framework of changing circumstances, both from adversaries and those who wish our nation ill, and against the backdrop of changing technology, as well as the need to be contemporary and relevant to the threats that Australia faces.

What this legislation does is look at some of the bigger challenges we have in terms of foreign conflict, for example, particularly around our foreign fighters legislation and the need to continue declared area offences associated with foreign fighters. This is a controversial part of law. It was reviewed recently by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which I am a member. I continue to have philosophical challenges with this provision of law, including the idea that we're going to declare areas in the world where it's essentially illegal to go and that, simply by an Australian citizen's mere presence in that location, they commit a crime. This is why we should review this legislation regularly and have it brought back. Is it still fit for purpose? Is it being utilised properly by our agencies and through the directives of the minister? Are they seeking to use or abuse these very critical powers? I think we can take a high degree of confidence with how they have been implemented, but that is how this government has done so; it needn't mean that other governments in the future may do so. There is a need to continue to review the basis of the legislation, its efficacy in the 21st century and whether it also sets precedents for other areas of law. That, of course, goes for other provisions within the bill—the renewal of the control orders regime; terrorist acts and foreign incursion; managing the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community; preventative detention orders, which are an important tool in preventing an imminent terrorist attack and preserving vital evidence in the aftermath of a terrorist attack; and emergency stop, search and seizure powers, which ensure police are able to respond consistently and effectively to terrorist incidents or threats. While all of these provisions give capacity to our agencies to do their job, there are heavy restrictions around their use, including protections for people's liberty, so that they're targeted and utilised appropriately.

More importantly, as part of the broader artifice of our national security framework—not just around the safeguards we provide around these types of powers that are given—we send them through the parliament for renewal so that we can be confident around their operational use. We also have, as members may be aware, quite a sophisticated architecture around the ongoing operation of this legislation so that it's used appropriately and there's proper oversight of its day-to-day use. Of course, we have the IGIS, the Inspector-General Intelligence and Security, with the standing powers of a royal commission to make sure that if there is misuse of power it's identified, those responsible are held accountable and it's transparent about abuse either to the public and/or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There's the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, who looked at some of the provisions around their ongoing extension and their justification. INSLM's job is to continually review laws in the national security space for our country and, in doing so, assess whether they're fit for purpose and what needs to be amended or updated or subtracted—we need to make this critically clear: or subtracted—from the framework of laws because they have reached their use-by date or no longer serve a practical purpose. All of those matters are overseen as well by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, of which, as I mentioned before, I'm a member. We do far more inquiries sometimes than our diaries allow, but that ensures that we are regularly reviewing the proper evidence base for the continuation of these laws, how they operate and the agencies that seek to implement them.

While there are many things in this chamber that we will strongly and vehemently disagree with, and sometimes I'm at the fore of those disagreements, the collegiality even in disagreement and seeking to query the basis of these laws through the PJCIS is something that members can take a great deal of comfort in. As somebody said to me, the committee has literally every part of the philosophical spectrum. In fact, I would say there's a healthy number of civil libertarians currently on the committee offering their own feedback and advice on legislation as it comes through, and, sometimes, I suspect, much to the minister's chagrin, there are requests for not just amendments but, more critically, a wholesale renewal and re-approach towards legislation to make sure it's fit for purpose and it's protecting Australian citizens' interests and their freedom against the backdrop of genuine, sincere national security threats. We as a committee work through those pieces of legislation methodically and pragmatically, in partnership with those who seek to implement it, on behalf of Australians. I know the work the committee does is highly regarded by this parliament because invariably when the PJCIS makes a recommendation—and members on both sides of the chamber are participants—it's generally taken as a given that that should be the broad basis of law. Sometimes there will be minor amendments and sometimes there will be disagreement between the committee, the parliament and the government, because of access to further information that may come about. But the basis of it remains the same and that is something we can all take a high degree of confidence in: its work and, more critically, the advice that's then provided to this parliament about the passage of legislation.

Make no mistake, the bill before us today is one of critical urgency and importance. The Morrison government's first task above all else is to keep Australians secure and safe. The threats that are posed to us as a nation through the risks of terrorism, cyberattacks and other threats remain real, and they are something that we must stay on top of as a nation if we wish to be confident in securing our national interest and the health, safety and wellbeing of the Australian people. Of course, these threats, most of which we do not invite upon ourselves at all, will continue into the future. Nonetheless, we must be in a position to respond to those threats, because those people who wish us harm need to be met with the full confidence of the Australian people and its government and its agencies to defend our way of life, our nation and our national interests. And we make no apology for standing up strongly in doing so, because the first basis of any citizen's freedom is of course their personal security. When that is threatened, they are not just threatened, we are not just threatened, but, of course, the nation is threatened as well. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context