David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa’ida and Jemaah Islamiya.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

I present the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security into the relisting of al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah as terrorist organisations. This review has raised a procedural question about the type of information presented by the Attorney in arguing for the continuation of a listing. It is the committee’s view that, on a relisting, it would be preferable to see arguments about the activities of the organisation in the period since the last consideration. Background information about the history of the terrorist activities of an organisation is useful, but the committee believes that the arguments for a relisting should concentrate on recent activities and information about what has changed since the last review, whether that be an increase or a decrease in terrorist activity. The relisting of an organisation is a fresh exercise of executive discretion and the committee believes there must, therefore, be a sufficient degree of currency in the evidence to warrant the use of the power.

In this report, the committee also wishes to reiterate two issues raised in previous reviews. The first relates to the manner in which information is provided in the statement of reasons. The legal test for the listing of an organisation is set out in the Criminal Code. However, this test is broad and does not explain why particular organisations are selected for listing. ASIO has provided additional criteria which it uses. These criteria are provided in this report. The committee has found the criteria useful as a means of assessing the arguments provided by the government in each statement of reasons and, in previous reports, the committee has asked the government to address these criteria in future statements of reasons. This has not occurred to date. The request is repeated in this report. It is the committee’s view that a clearer exposition of the criteria would strengthen the government’s arguments, provide greater clarity and consistency in the evidence and therefore increase public confidence in the regime as a whole. It would greatly facilitate the committee’s review process if this change occurred.

The question of community information regarding these regulations also remains a difficulty. On these current regulations there was no attempt to inform the community beyond the press release that was issued by the Attorney-General. Perhaps, on organisations of the profile of these two, this is not as important as in other cases.

On the substantive question of the threat posed by the organisations themselves, the committee has sought to consider each against ASIO’s criteria. It is notable that not all categories in the criteria are covered in the statements of reasons. In this review, the committee has sought to understand the current circumstances of each organisation. In each case, there are complex forces at work. Each organisation has been under considerable pressure and yet structural decline has not led to a lessening of the threat. However, it is unclear whether the threat comes directly from the organisation as such or from some wider and widening response to the war on terrorism.

The committee notes that all sources describe al-Qaeda as an organisation that is damaged and fragmented by the pressure that has been brought to bear on it since September 2001. Its capacity is now aspirational and ideological rather than material or advisory. However, all also argue that the influence of the organisation and its capacity to inspire jihadist activities have grown as a result of actions in the war on terrorism, particularly the war in Iraq. In particular, the Attorney-General’s statement of reasons quotes bin Laden who, in advocating terrorism, says that the bombings in Europe are revenge for invasion and occupation of Muslim lands. It is this capacity of al-Qaeda to inspire disconnected groups which remains a concern.

On Jemaah Islamiah, the picture is also a complex one. The International Crisis Group notes that, while there is an intersection and overlapping of personal networks, there are divisions over tactics among terrorist groups in Indonesia and that individuals often operate on their own.

The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulations relating to either al-Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiah. I commend the report to the House.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the report of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that is entitled the Review of the re-listing of Al-Qa’ida and Jemaah Islamiya, which relates to the relisting of al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah as proscribed organisations, and I endorse the comments made by the chairman. I emphasise to this parliament that it is a bipartisan committee and a bipartisan report.

The power of proscription is a very important one and one that is obviously not used lightly by governments because it has such a profound effect on the community. It is an essential tool in the war on terror. When the committee examined the two organisations that have been brought forward for relisting, it noted that a couple of procedural concerns that it had raised on previous occasions when examining the relisting of 19 organisations have still not been dealt with by the Australian government. It is my contention to this House and to the community that we need public support for the use of such a large and strong power. The three procedural matters that we have raised consistently that have not been addressed include consultation, for example, with the states and territories. We note in this particular relisting that, instead of the premiers being consulted, as in accordance with the agreement, it is just the attorneys-general.

There is also an issue about community consultation. These powers are very broad and strict. In previous reports in March, May, August and September last year, the committee made recommendations on information programs on the effect that these powers have on the community. We were assured by the Attorney-General’s Department that the programs were being developed, but there is no evidence of these programs being implemented in these particular cases.

With respect to relisting in the statements of reasons, in the particular relisting of these two organisations it was the view of the committee that more contemporaneous information should be provided to the committee. Things change, and while it is great to get a historical overview and perspective, the fact is that, when we need to justify the proscription of an organisation or organisations to the community, more contemporary information would be useful, particularly in this environment of increased threat. We have seen, for example, the national intelligence assessment investigation into Iraq and its report which basically said that there is an increased terrorism threat to America and to its allies as a consequence of its involvement in Iraq. Thus, it needs to be very clear that, in restating the reasons why we need to continue to proscribe these organisations, we provide the most contemporary and up-to-date assessment possible, and the committee feels that it was lacking in this particular case.

In addition, to provide continued public support for these particular listings and not for these organisations, ASIO provided the committee with a set of criteria that it uses to determine a proscription. Those criteria were an organisation’s:

Engagement in terrorism;

Ideology and links to other terrorist groups or networks;

Links to Australia;

Threats to Australian interests;

Proscription by the UN or like minded countries; and

Engagement in peace/mediation processes.

We have been discussing the issue of a logical benchmark for proscription with ASIO and the Attorney-General’s Department for some period of time, and these matters have still not been resolved. As deputy chair of the committee, I believe that they should be resolved and that there should be clearly benchmarkable criteria that are used by ASIO and the Attorney-General’s Department when they come before the parliament to seek proscription.

We must acknowledge that we are in a different environment. For example, look at a report by the International Crisis Group which talks about the war on terror and al-Qaeda. It says that, whilst two-thirds of al-Qaeda’s leadership have been killed or captured and:

… this has undoubtedly diminished its organisational capacity, it hasn’t done anything to diminish its global following … If the war on terrorism as it has so far been conducted has been a success, that is a well kept secret. Terrorist attacks classified by the US government as significant more than tripled worldwide to 650 last year from 175 in 2003.

We must be mindful that our threat environment has changed, and that changed threat environment should have been brought to the committee’s attention, in my view. I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he keeps these changed environments— (Time expired)