James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. It has been made clear that it is essentially about extending certain powers that have been provided now for a few years to the Australian Federal Police. They are due to expire this December, and this bill extends that expiration for another 12 months and allows time for the recommendations that the PJCIS has given to government to be implemented as well as some further consultation with other law enforcement agencies in the various state jurisdictions. Whilst I'm very happy to support this extension in this case, these powers are quite significant and ones that we should always hesitate around fully convincing ourselves of their necessity. I certainly am convinced of the necessity of these powers being extended. Nonetheless, it is a very important part of the social compact in this country between our law enforcement agencies and the powers they have, and any new powers or capabilities that are given to them, that we equally are doing that in an environment where there is a deep amount of community trust that those powers will be used appropriately and with great discretion and that they are indeed absolutely necessary to keep us safe.

We, as parliamentarians in a democracy, need to absolutely ensure that we are always being mindful and wary of giving the capability to law enforcement that could run the risk of removing people's liberties or putting them in a position that's not fair in our society without extremely good reason. The overview of the three powers, when exercised, are the sorts of powers that do impugn the liberty of the citizens of this country. We need to set a very high standard for the need for that. The stop, search and seizure power is obviously not something an Australian would expect in a normal situation without a strong case of probable cause. Equally, control orders and preventative detention orders are also powers that seem, on the face of them, to be quite significant, perhaps even extreme, and they would be in circumstances not related to terrorism and the threat of terrorism. At the risk of terrorism and terrorist acts, I absolutely support the requirement for us to equip the Australian Federal Police with the appropriate capability beyond what they can do in other circumstances so that they can undertake their law enforcement obligations in this country and have some enhanced powers to put them in a position to best protect us from the threat of terrorism.

On 12 October, in two weeks time, is the 20th anniversary of the Bali bombings. Unfortunately, this parliament won't be sitting on that date, so I take this opportunity to remember the Australians that were killed and injured in those terrorist attacks in Bali 20 years ago. A little over a year ago, we commemorated the 20th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, where many Australians and thousands of Americans were killed.

The counterterrorism framework in this country really has been completely overhauled, enhanced and re-engineered since that epochal moment on 11 September 2001, when all of us lost some of our comfort about the world that we live in and some of our reassurance. We lost a sense that things could happen only in some parts of the world and not just anywhere in the world. When two planes flew into two buildings in Lower Manhattan, I certainly remember feeling, as part of many emotions at the time, that there is nothing different between New York City and Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or anywhere in this country, Australia. Really, as a planet, we all responded very significantly to a world that was going to be changed forever because of those events.

Unfortunately, Australians died not just in September 11 but, of course, in other terrorist attacks that have occurred since then. I mentioned the Bali bombings, and at times there have been others around the world, of course, that have claimed the lives of Australians. Australians were killed in the London Bridge attacks. I was in London at the time. Frankly, it was just a terrible experience, being so close—adjacent—to a terrorist attack that occurred at that point.

So it is a very serious risk, and unfortunately it is ever present with us. Frankly, it would be unforgivable for us as a parliament to ever think: 'Oh, look, it's been a while now since anything of a serious magnitude happened. Nothing too serious has happened in this country since the Lindt Cafe siege.' Unfortunately, we can never, ever decide that we'll ever be truly safe again and that we can ever stand down from that posture. We pay such tribute to the people on the front line of keeping us safe against the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, they are going to have to be at that heightened sense of alert, really, in perpetuity. I just don't see a time where we'll ever be able to say the threat of some form of terrorist attack in our society is no longer something that we see as being likely or possible.

In that context, this extension is appropriate. The previous speaker made this point, and I'm sure other speakers on this bill will also make the point. I think that it is pleasing to see how infrequently—in some cases not at all—these powers that the AFP have been given have ever had to be used. That is quite reassuring to me from two points of view. The first is that it is a relief that there aren't risks that the AFP are identifying on a regular basis that mean they have to use these powers. I think that's a good thing. I'd love for them to never have to use these powers, despite the importance of them having access to the powers. It also gives me comfort that they are not abusing these powers or looking at these powers as opportunities to reach beyond their reasonable remit in doing what they do to keep us safe from the threat of terrorism.

Like other speakers, I am anxious that the government complete this fairly rapidly. This 12-month extension, hopefully is the only extension that they need. I really pay tribute to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the work that they do. We can see with legislation like this how vital it is that we have a real bipartisanship on these issues. I know my good friend the member for Fisher now serves on that committee, and I'm sure that there will be a contribution from him about the importance of the work there and also how we can put our trust and faith in some of our members. It can't be all of us, obviously. It's got to be some of our members who can be on a committee like that, where they get access to important information that is necessary for them to have confidence that legislation that will come to the parliament is necessary. We can't ask certain questions, particularly in the public domain, of the executive government when they come and seek certain powers about which we might think, 'Well, we'd love some justification for this.' We equally can't ask that in the public domain in a public setting, and it is vital that there is proper structure that is linked to the parliament that not only is able to be brought into sometimes extremely confidential information, which absolutely must be protected and kept confidential from a national security point of view, but also gives them a confidence as to why our agencies and our government are asking for certain powers to be provided to them. That mechanism does give me great comfort. When we're asked to vote on this type of legislation, where there is a lot of information that probably does support the need for legislative change or legislative enactment, but at the same time can't be provided to every member of parliament, we have the mechanism of PJCIS. That means an appropriate number of our colleagues can be given proper briefings on the basis of the extremely necessary confidentiality and protection of that information, so that they can say to colleagues like myself, who are not serving on that committee, that they have felt justified in the need for these powers.

These powers were enacted under the former government, and we've now got a new government and a new executive that are saying, 'Yes, indeed, these powers need to be extended.' We've sensibly had these sunset clauses on these powers so that they are coming back to the parliament on a regular basis, and I believe the intention is to put a more permanent arrangement in place, flowing out of a process in PJCIS and the work they've done to put something more permanent in place and with the appropriate consultation with state law enforcement authorities and the like. On that basis, I am very much comfortable in supporting something which I have a natural trepidation towards but which does need to meet a very high standard of justification. These are significant powers that we would ordinarily be quite nervous about providing to any government agency, but I do believe that when it comes to counterterrorism and equipping the agency with the necessary powers that they need to do their job, as long as members of parliament have been given a strong justification through an appropriate way, which I've just outlined, I think that we should be backing and supporting the Australian Federal Police and equipping them with the necessary powers they need to keep us safe from terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context