Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I too speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. I thank the member for Wannon for his comments and, of course, both the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security for their contribution to the report that was just tabled, which is relevant to the bill we're considering.

As the member for Wannon noted, the declared areas provisions essentially give our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and Australia as a whole, the ability to protect Australians, and they do that in a few ways. They have been in place for some time. This bill allows them to continue operating in circumstances where we need that to be the case. It's good that we can consider these things seriously and carefully. It's good we have a committee process that looks at these kinds of legislation open-mindedly and with a preparedness to examine how they were established, how they work and whether or not changes need to be considered. It's good that we can have a sober and serious conversation here about bills like this and what they enable, which is essentially to see that the declared areas provisions continue for another three years.

In terms of how the provisions help to make Australians safe, they operate in a couple of different directions. One of the things about having a declared area put in place is that it stands as a clear signal to the Australian community that that is not a place that Australians should consider going. Essentially it happens where, in some part of the world, you have a listed terrorist organisation engaging in a hostile activity or, as the Director-General of ASIO, Mr Burgess, said, an ungoverned or uncontrolled space where a terrorist organisation is operating. For understandable reasons, those are very dangerous places and we don't want Australians going there.

Declared areas have only been put in place twice, as the member for Wannon noted: once in 2014 in relation to Syria and then again in 2018 in relation to Iraq. So, when we consider things that the member for Wannon properly described as being extraordinary, we should take some comfort and some confidence from the fact that these measures are only being used when it is necessary that they be put in place to keep Australians safe.

There have been a handful of charges made under these provisions and, I believe, only one conviction. But, where these provisions need to be used, it will certainly be to ensure that Australians are safe—and this is the second direction in which these provisions work—from the potential that someone has gone and been in an area that is dominated to some extent by a terrorist organisation, engaged in hostile activity and been involved in the activity or otherwise been affected or influenced by that activity, with the possible outcome that they return to Australia and present a risk to our safety and security.

I know through the committee process that I was also a part of, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, that we had expert civil society organisations come and present to us about the nature of this legislation and the framework that it puts in place. That's legitimate. As the member for Wannon noted, that's how our system of parliamentary democracy, including our parliamentary committee system, works at its best—making sure that we do apply scrutiny to measures that inevitably infringe on the rights of individuals. These measures do limit the ability for an Australian to move freely about the world. We don't want that to be the case in circumstances that are anything other than extraordinary. That's why these measures have been used very sparingly and only in those most extreme circumstances.

The civil society organisations that I talk about, like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia, legitimately asked questions about how the framework operates. They have made observations to us about some parallel frameworks. In the case of how the equivalent framework works in the United Kingdom, it was closely based on what Australia put in place. We should take some pride in that, in the sense that we've made a contribution to the way that other countries also protect their citizens, but there have been concerns raised about the way in which the framework operates to acknowledge that there might be some legitimate reasons for an Australian citizen to be in a declared area. The regime already has a set of identified exceptions, but it was brought to the attention of the intelligence and security committee that further consideration could be given as to whether or not those exceptions are as broad and flexible as they might need to be. I understand why the intelligence and security committee has made a recommendation that the government give further consideration to that.

The committee has also made a recommendation about the application of a grace period. As the member for Wannon noted, the way that this particular framework operates is that, when a declaration is made, it literally becomes criminal for an Australian to go to or remain in that area from that time unless they have one of the limited defined reasons or exceptions for being there. The United Kingdom framework does have a grace period that is mindful of the fact that, when you go from not being a declared area to being a declared area overnight, there might be people who happen to be there already or someone who is en route to that place in a way where it's not reasonable for them to understand that it has become declared in a short period of time. So the operation of a grace period is not unworthy of consideration. The recommendation of the committee is that the government give some consideration to that. That has been the way that the UK framework has operated.

In essence, this is a measure that has been in place now for some period of time. It was put in place by the previous government. I know that the member for McPherson—who was in the chair before you, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—had some involvement in that. We acknowledge that work. It is something that Australians expect the parliament as a whole, the government and non-government members to work on in a collegiate way. That doesn't mean it's uncontested. That doesn't mean it's unexamined or that it goes without a healthy amount of scrutiny and sometimes even disagreement. But it does mean that, as much as possible, particularly in areas like this—because they are so grave and because they can be so fraught—we bring to that conversation the appropriate level of sobriety and reasonableness.

To conclude and to pick up on what the member for Wannon said about the change in the threat level that was announced by the director-general of ASIO recently, the way that we conduct ourselves on these matters and the way that leaders across the community, particularly legislators and parliamentarians, conduct themselves on these issues matters. The way we talk about them matters. When there are circumstances that are fraught and febrile and there is concern and distress in the community, it's our obligation—all of us—to talk about these things in a way that is measured, considerate and compassionate.

I think the contribution that the deputy chair made before was in that vein. He is right to examine these matters and to have views. They won't always be completely in sync with the government of the day. That kind of contestability is essential to making sure that our decisions have the highest integrity. But, nevertheless, he made that contribution with his characteristic reasonableness and evenness of tone. I think we all know, after some of the circumstances that have been characteristic of 2024, that we need more of that. We need to make sure that, if we want peacefulness, harmony and social inclusion, all of our conduct contributes to that. Certainly our conduct in this place—the tone, the substance and the manner, as well as the respect that we have for one another—is a form of leadership that the community wants to see and can thereby replicate in the way that they approach these things. That's in all of our interests.

See this speech in context