Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor 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 Ansar al-Islam, AAA, IAA, IMU, JeM and LeJ as terrorist organisations.

Order that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

This report has departed from the usual format of terrorist proscription reports. In this report the committee has sought some improvements with respect to the statement of reasons process. The committee recommends that in future the Attorney-General provide the committee with a statement of reasons where a decision is taken not to re-list an organisation similar to that now supplied when an organisation is listed.

There is no requirement for the Attorney-General to provide the committee with detailed reasons when he decides not to re-list an organisation. However, it would be useful if, where the Attorney-General has decided he will not be re-listing an organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code, a statement of reasons explaining his decision is provided to the committee and that there also be a publicly released statement of reasons.

The committee was advised that the Attorney-General recently considered advice from the Director-General of Security with respect to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). Based on that advice he stated he would not be re-listing EIJ as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code after the current listing expired on 30 March 2009. The committee’s recommendations would enhance transparency and public confidence in this important process.

The committee in this parliament and earlier parliaments has taken the view that the non-statutory guidelines used by ASIO are a useful tool in evaluating the evidence supporting a listing or re-listing. The committee believes it would be helpful in its role if the statement of reasons were written in part in a way that directly links the evidence with the ASIO guidelines.

This approach would also better inform public understanding of the listing process and outcomes.

The committee has also requested that future statements of reasons be drafted, in part, in such a way that the information is directly referrable to the statutory criteria for listing contained within the Criminal Code.

I turn to the current regulations. They were signed by the Governor-General on 13 March 2009. They were then tabled in the House and the Senate on 17 March 2009. The disallowance period of 15 sitting days for the committee’s review of the listing began from the date of the tabling. Therefore the committee has conducted its affairs in order for it to report to the parliament by today, Monday 15 June 2009.

Notice of the inquiry was placed on the committee’s website and in the national daily newspaper. One submission was received from a public organisation. Representatives of the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Vic.) Inc., the Attorney-General’s Department and ASIO attended a private hearing on the listings.

I now quickly turn to other organisations.

Ansar al-Islam has immediate objectives to overthrow the Iraqi government, expel coalition forces from the country and establish a Sunni Islamic state administered under Shariah law.

The last confirmed terrorist act Ansar al-Islam was involved in was an attack on a Peshmerga barracks, reportedly killing 19 people and destroying two vehicles on 13 August 2008.

The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to Ansar al-Islam.

Asbat al Ansar, AAA, has objectives to establish a Sunni Islamic state in Lebanon by overthrowing the Lebanese government, eliminating Israel and impeding anti-Islamic and pro-Western influences in Lebanon. The group believes its struggle justifies violence against civilians. Its strategies in seeking its objectives include the use of terrorist tactics.

AAA remains focused on supporting jihad in Iraq and planning attacks against Lebanese security forces, and Western interests.

The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to the AAA.

The Islamic Army of Aden, IAA, is a Sunni Islamic extremist group that first came to public prominence in 1998 when it issued statements detailing its intention to overthrow the Yemeni government and implement Shariah law; and called for operations against Western interests in Yemen.

In March-April members of the group suspected of planning to travel to Iraq to fight foreign forces were arrested.

The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to the IAA.

The IMU is now fighting in support of the Taliban.

The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to the IMU.

The JeM is a Sunni Islamic organisation also based in Pakistan.

The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to JeM.

The LeJ is a Sunni Islamic group involved in terrorist activities including attacks in Lahore.

The committee does not recommend disallowance of the regulation in relation to LeJ.

In conclusion, as I have done on other occasions, I note the cooperation of members of the committee and thank them for their involvement and also thank the secretariat. (Time expired)

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I intend to speak in support of the report and the remarks of the chair in relation to the continued proscription of these six organisations. They were organisations initially listed as terrorist organisations in 2003, and each of them had been listed on the United Nations list of terrorist organisations. They came up for review under the new legislative arrangements passed by parliament in 2004, and the committee therefore reviewed the first re-listing of these organisations in 2005. Following this, the committee again reviewed these re-listings in June 2007. So this is the third review of re-listing of these six terrorist organisations. The chair has been through a brief outline of the circumstances which lead us to a view that the Attorney has properly listed these organisations.

In the report is some useful information to help guide those who are interested in understanding the sorts of criteria that apply in relation to listing organisations. ASIO’s guidelines, as they were outlined to us in evidence in 2005, include factors such as engagement in terrorism, ideology and links to other terrorist groups or networks, links to Australia, the threat to Australian interests, proscription by the United Nations or like-minded countries, and engagement in peace and mediation processes. The committee noted that these guidelines are indicators only and not formally set out in the act but has found these a useful tool in its deliberations. The committee continues to use these guidelines to assist it in relation to its reviews.

The Federation of Community Legal Centres made the point to us that, in the case of six organisations, the statements of reasons did not identify that any of the organisations in question have links to Australia. I note that the committee’s view is that it is a misunderstanding of the statutory scheme to suggest that listing of an organisation with no identifiable links to Australia exceeds the scope of the legislative intent or is a misuse of power. The committee takes the view that, while direct links to Australia are not a statutory prerequisite, links are appropriate considerations in the selection of organisations for proscription. I think it is important because in the context of threats to Australia’s interests they can be posed to our citizens abroad as well as our interests that extend beyond the territorial boundaries of Australia. They are matters that were relevant to the committee in its deliberations in relation to these particular organisations.

I continue to be impressed with the quality of the deliberations of my colleagues on these matters. I have seen the other side of the wicket, as it were, and believe that they bring a very mature deliberation to this task. I think it is one of the most important tasks that parliamentary committees can be engaged in. The committee is assisted by a very able secretary. I see Robert Little in the advisers’ box; he is the inquiry secretary. I say to him and his colleagues that we very much value your collective efforts and the work that you undertake to ensure that in relation to these very important deliberations we are well informed and able to fulfil our responsibilities.

I commend the report of the committee to the House and assure honourable members that these matters are important. They are important for securing the safety of the broader Australian community based here and abroad. I am delighted to be associated with this particular report.