Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I think it is worthwhile that this House recall that as we debate this bill today, in numerous places around the world members of Australia’s armed forces, the Australian Federal Police, and officers of Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, are undertaking dangerous and difficult tasks in pursuit of Australia’s national security. The tasks that they are performing are difficult but necessary.

Equally important to Australia’s national security are our anti-terrorist intelligence operations. In the post 9/11 world, Australia has expanded its counterterrorism capacity through the state police forces and the Australian Federal Police, through ASIO and through ASIS. The fact that there has been no terrorist attack on Australian soil testifies to our success, and in this vital area it is imperative that the Rudd government continues to build on the good work of the previous coalition government. The former coalition government understood that keeping the Australian people safe is the most basic duty of government.

One important facet of Australia’s national security where this Labor government has failed dismally is in border security. Since August 2008, when the government dismantled our effective border protection system, there have been 128 illegal boat arrivals, carrying 5,932 people. This year alone there have been 60 illegal boat arrivals carrying 2,961 people. The Prime Minister’s failed immigration and border protection policies are now bringing illegal boats in record numbers but unlike the coalition the Prime Minister is unwilling to take the necessary action to fix the chaos that has been created by his own inability to leave well enough alone, when he came to office.

Instead, we now find Labor asking churches to take asylum seekers as the Christmas Island detention centre overflows and onshore detention centres swell under the weight of Labor’s inept immigration and border protection policies. The rate of arrivals is literally overwhelming the available capacity of our border protection forces, who do incredibly difficult and hard work keeping Australia safe.

Labor’s failed border protection policies have cost taxpayers an extra $1 billion over four years, according to figures announced in the recent budget. The government is chasing its tail with these costs. It is doing nothing to stop these costs from skyrocketing. Its answer is just to keep shovelling money to pay for these blow-outs, which have now contributed to this ridiculous and unnecessary $1 billion blow-out—money that the Australian taxpayer would never have been required to spend in these areas if Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party had just been able to contain themselves and not mess with the successful border protection system that we had in place. This $1 billion blow-out could just be the beginning. It may well go higher, and it will go higher if the government is not changed and if they are the ones who keep ineptly managing our borders. People smuggling is an insidious trade that takes advantage of those in the most vulnerable situations. This Labor government needs to recognise this fact and take action towards stopping the boats from leaving in the first place rather than luring them with a Christmas Island reception centre.

I will just move to some of the detail of the proposals within this bill. The bill proposes amendments to legislation in four principal areas: treason, sedition and terrorism offences; powers to investigate terrorism and serious crime; the listing and proscription of terrorist organisations; and the protection of national security information and court proceedings. I want to talk about the first part—the treason, sedition and terrorism offences. The bill proposes that the offence of treason in the Criminal Code be amended by confining the offence to those who owe allegiance to Australia or who voluntarily place themselves under Australia’s protection, and clarifies that the offence of assisting the enemy refers to material assistance.

The offence of sedition is proposed to be renamed ‘urging violence’ and includes urging the overthrow of the Constitution or the government and urging interference in parliamentary elections. These provisions will require an intention that force or violence would be used. A new offence is also proposed of urging the use of force or violence against a group distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion. There is a lesser offence if the force does not threaten the peace, order and good governance of the Commonwealth. The defence of ‘acts done in good faith’ is clarified by making it relevant that acts were done in the context of artistic work, in genuine academic or scientific discourse or in the dissemination of news or current affairs.

It is proposed to repeal the offences relating to unlawful associations. These are claimed to be outdated and subsumed by the terrorist organisation laws. Amendments to the definition of a terrorist act propose to include the United Nations as a target of the act. The definition of the harm intended to be caused by a terrorist act is extended to include psychological harm.

The new offence of committing a terrorist hoax is proposed, with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years. The offence of advocating the doing of a terrorist act will be amended to provide that the prosecution must establish that there is a substantial risk that it could lead another person to commit a terrorist act. This is consistent with the concept of risk elsewhere in the Criminal Code. The offence of providing support to a terrorist organisation is clarified to mean material support. I would like to acknowledge at this point the very substantial contribution of the former Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, who was very proactive in dealing with these issues.

I will go to section 2, powers to investigate terrorism and serious crime. Amendments are proposed to the Crimes Act which are said to arise from recent operational experience. The division relating to powers of detention will be separated into two subdivisions to deal with terrorism and terrorism offences. In the case of terrorism offences, the maximum length of time that a person can be detained during an investigation period is proposed to be seven days and 20 hours. The provisions relating to re-entry under an existing search warrant will be amended to permit re-entry within one hour in normal circumstances and 12 hours in an emergency situation. In addition, it is proposed that entry without a warrant be permitted in emergency situations when investigating terrorism. It is proposed that there be a right of appeal both to prosecutors and defendants against bail decisions if there are exceptional circumstances.

Moving to the third area of amendments, the listing and proscription of terrorist organisations, minor amendments are proposed to provide for listing if the minister is satisfied of the proscribed matters on reasonable grounds. Listings are to be reviewed every three years. As stated in the bill’s explanatory memorandum:

Currently under subsection 102.1(3) of the Criminal Code, the listing of an organisation ceases to have effect two years after its commencement, or if the Attorney-General ceases to be satisfied that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, whichever occurs first.

The purpose of the automatic expiration is to ensure that if the Government wishes to continue the proscription, the Attorney-General has considered afresh all the relevant information and is satisfied that there is a sufficient factual basis to justify the proscription for a further period.

The proposed amendments … will provide that a regulation proscribing an entity as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code will automatically expire on the third anniversary of the day on which it took effect. This is consistent with a recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security … in its Inquiry into the Proscription of ‘terrorist organisations’ under the Australian Criminal Code (September 2007). The Committee, which is responsible for reviewing all listings of terrorist organisations … concluded that extending the period of a listing regulation from two to three years would offer an adequate level of oversight.

The fourth area consists of amendments to the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004. The purpose of the act is to protect information from disclosure in federal criminal proceedings and civil court proceedings where the disclosure would be likely to prejudice Australia’s national security. The act has been invoked some 38 times, and the experience informs some relatively minor amendments, principally to clarify that notification should be made to a party’s legal representatives and to streamline the definition of situations in which disclosure would be permitted. In some situations, answers to questions in court may be made in writing.

I turn now to the concurrent bill, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. The establishment of the committee was a proposal of the discussion paper on proposed reforms to counterterrorism and national security legislation. The proposed committee will replace and extend the functions of the current Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, of which I am privileged to be a member. The principal extension is the inclusion of the Australian Federal Police. The committee will be asked to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods, and to report on any desirable changes to the functions, structures, powers and procedures of the ACC or AFP. It will also inquire into any question in connection with its functions that is referred to it by either house of parliament.

Unregulated and increasingly voluminous people movements are testing this Labor government’s border security policies; and, as we know, Australia has essentially become a magnet for this insidious trade peddled by people smugglers. It was my privilege very recently to visit Christmas Island. I met some of the brave Australian service personnel—in this instance, serving on HMAS Albany—who engage with Border Protection Command in patrolling our northern waters to intercept illegal boat arrivals. The crew were called Attack 4 division and they were led by Lieutenant Commander Paul Garai as part of Operation Resolute, the ADF’s contribution to protecting Australia’s borders. They obviously work alongside personnel from Customs and other agencies. Up to 400 ADF personnel are assigned to Operation Resolute. It is the largest ADF operation outside Afghanistan. I think it is very important that we in this House acknowledge that that there are grave dangers for our personnel who are involved in Operation Resolute. Indeed, going back to the incidents surrounding the SIEV36, it is possible that Australian service personnel on the intercepting patrol boat could have been injured or killed. So it is very important, I think, that we knowledge that the work they are doing is vital to Australia’s security and also involves some personal danger to themselves.

When I visited Christmas Island I had the chance to meet with Customs and Australian Federal Police officers, who are doing an excellent job of performing the policing and customs functions on the island, as well as dealing with illegal boat arrivals. All Australian government personnel deal compassionately yet firmly with the range of people seeking entry to Australia. I salute the professionalism which Customs, AFP and our armed forces apply when performing this very important task. We, the Australian parliament, expect a great deal of them and they have a right to know that the Australian people are fully behind them.

It is worth noting that the bill, together with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill, has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June. The coalition reserves its right to move amendments in the Senate, pending the committee’s recommendations. The coalition strongly believes that governments have a responsibility to do everything within their power to improve national security and to deal with all potential threats that face Australia. Waiting for a terrorist attack to occur is unacceptable. It is integral that this package of reforms delivers strong laws that protect our safety while at the same time it preserves democratic rights to protect our freedoms. Therefore, the opposition supports the thrust of both the bills.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. I thank my colleague for his assistance. Back in 2006, when I was serving as Attorney General in the state of New South Wales, I made a speech that did not meet with universal approval within my own party. I was at the time particularly concerned about the sedition provisions of the new national security legislation and I complained also of the ferocious hostility then being directed by the right-wing media commentariat against any suggestion that human rights considerations were of serious relevance in the response to terrorism. I suggested, indeed, that human rights had been taking a battering from two forces: from terrorist activity and from terrorism laws. I believe I was correct to have had those concerns in 2006 and that a proportionate response to threats to national security was not always achieved at that time.

However, the attacks on New York and Washington in November 2001, and the later attacks in Jakarta, Bali, Madrid, London and, more lately, Mumbai, absolutely require the Commonwealth to maintain and improve the legal framework for our national security. On the other hand, if in our resistance to terrorism we abandon the rule of law as it has been understood in the common-law world, then the terrorists have in significant degree won. I believe absolutely that our culture of equality before the law and freedom of speech is by far the best defence that we have against terrorism. I do not intend to quote myself more than one more time, but I have also turned up a speech that I made introducing terrorism legislation into the New South Wales parliament. I generally justified the law, which complemented the Commonwealth law, by pointing out that in profound ways terrorism was quite unlike general criminal activity. I said:

General criminal activity has never aimed to perpetrate the mass taking of life, the widespread destruction of property, or the wholesale disruption of society in the way that terrorism does.

The national security legislation developed after 9-11 and after the London bombings of 2005 was passed, obviously, in the shadow of quite momentous events, but it was nevertheless passed, bearing in mind that gravity, with extraordinary haste. Technical errors requiring later correction were inevitable. The laws were also, as has since been demonstrated, sometimes careless of their impact on individual rights—that is on the one hand. But they were sometimes insufficiently precise about the exercise of powers absolutely needed by police and intelligence agencies to effectively constrain terrorist activity. It was very hard in the atmosphere of the time to keep an appropriate balance, from the perspective from which I was working anyway. I have already mentioned the commentators who were prepared to treat any reference to human rights as some sort of affront to our national values. One was aware, too, that Prime Minister Howard was on the lookout always for an opportunity to wedge the Labor Party with the suggestion that it was soft on terrorism. He was no more capable of genuine bipartisanship than the present Leader of the Opposition in this respect.

Fortunately the Senate did operate as something of a brake on the attempts of the then government to force headlong passage of terrorism legislation and managed some important amendments. Still, it has taken a number of independent reviews—they were mentioned by the Attorney in his second reading speech—to bring together the balancing amendments contained in the bill before us now. I do, by the way, particularly commend the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and its chair, the member for Brisbane, in this respect. The need for balance is well described by Lynch and Williams in their book, What price security?:

Making a sufficient response to this uncertain threat involves creating offences that recognise the seriousness of the crime of terrorism and granting our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the powers they need to protect us. But this must not be the only approach if we are to win the ‘war on terror’. We also have to ensure that we preserve our way of life—and particularly the basic freedoms and access to justice that are consistent with our position as one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies.

The authors go on to deliver a low blow—they quote Robert Gordon Menzies introducing the national security legislation on the eve of World War II, our biggest ever security threat. Menzies said:

Whatever may be the extent of power that may be taken to govern, to direct and to control by regulation, there must be as little interference with individual rights as is consistent with concerted national effort … the greatest tragedy that could overcome a country would be for it to fight a successful war in defence of liberty and to lose its own liberty in the process.

I am grateful to Robert Gordon Menzies for so precisely nailing the point. I wish particularly to draw attention to the measures in this bill which deal with sedition and treason offences, and also those which implement recommendations of the inquiry by John Clarke QC into the famous case of Dr Mohamed Haneef.

It is exactly to help ensure the quality of balance I have been speaking of that Clarke recommended the appointment of an independent reviewer who will be able, where necessary, to conduct a robust investigation of an intelligence or security matter within any agency of government. The bill extends the present role of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security so that may occur. At the same time, this bill extends the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission to include the Australian Federal Police. The new committee will be called the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, and I am certainly among those who welcome its extended oversight.

The joint committee will be responsible for providing broad parliamentary oversight of the AFP and the Australian Crime Commission. The functions of the committee will include monitoring and reporting to parliament on the performance by the Australian Crime Commission of its functions, monitoring and reporting to parliament on the performance by the AFP of its functions, and examining trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and reporting on any desirable changes to the function, structure, powers and procedures of the Crime Commission or AFP. The establishment of this committee implements the government’s election commitment to improve oversight of the AFP.

I held responsibility for both the Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police from November 2007 until June 2009—that is to say, well after the events investigated by Mr Clarke but during the time when he actually brought down his report. Unlike many journalistic commentators, I have drawn the conclusion that Clarke got the role and situation of the AFP about right. At the same time, he accurately identified problems in the procedures for the conduct of a terrorist investigation set out in the Crimes Act, which had been introduced in 2006.

Clarke says that one officer became too close to that case, and he says that the Director of Public Prosecutions should never have advised AFP to charge Haneef. He nevertheless goes out of his way to describe the senior AFP officers involved in the investigation as dedicated, impressive people of high capacity. I wish to say that I identify with those remarks; I precisely agree with him. Real people in situations like this one can face quite extraordinary stress and, in the Attorney-General’s words, they need procedures to administer that are precise and appropriately tailored. It is worth quoting from the Clarke report:

Unfortunately, the investigation has been presented, somewhat unfairly, as a complete bungle. That is because it took a long time and in the end Dr Haneef was wrongly charged. Should it have taken so long? I think not … In my view, the ‘extension of time’ provisions in the Crimes Act—which failed to provide a cap or limit on the detention period—removed, or diminished, the sense of urgency that should have been brought to the task of determining whether to charge or release.

That is what Clarke said. He said the investigators, who were dealing with an entirely new kind of crisis, needed clearer, more precise procedural guidance. The amendments in the present bill to part 1C of the Crimes Act have the purpose of clarifying the intent of the terrorism investigation process. They clarify the definition of the word ‘arrested’. Part 1C powers apply only if a person has been validly arrested. They set a seven-day limit as the maximum period that can be specified by a magistrate and disregarded from the investigation period. They clarify how the investigation period and the time that may be disregarded from it are calculated. They clarify procedures by which investigators may apply for a period of disregarded time and they insert a number of proper safeguards. A senior officer must oversee the preparation of an application to the magistrate in this circumstance. The arrested person or their legal representative is entitled to make representations to the magistrate. That is to say, the overall purpose of this amendment, a quite critical one, is to clarify the policy extent of the terrorism powers and to improve their practical application.

I turn now to the law of sedition. It has archaic roots in the Star Chamber of the early 17th century. It was used against Gandhi. It was used against the shearers in the great strike of 1891. It was last used in the infamous case against the communist leader Sharkey in 1949. It is by definition imprecise, subject to arbitrary application. It may be used to punish a defendant severely not for what they have done but for what they have said. The sedition law had fallen into disuse at both federal and state levels; however, sedition offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code, lying there dormant, were resurrected and included, admittedly in somewhat modified form, in the 2005 terrorism legislation.

There were not a few people on both sides of this House who were deeply troubled by that development. In the atmosphere of the time, the revival of the sedition provisions was a clear and present threat to Australian freedom of speech—not only a direct threat but an indirect threat insofar as provisions of that nature frighten people into restraining their words for fear of possible prosecution. The compromise offered by the Howard government in 2005 was a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission. I am profoundly relieved that in the bill before the House the government is essentially accepting the recommendations of the ALRC.

The sedition and treason offences in the Criminal Code will be clarified and the odious words themselves abandoned. The name of the sedition offence will be changed to the precise and accurate term ‘urging violence’. An offence to intentionally urge violence against a group on the basis of race, religion, nationality or political opinion already exists, at least where that action would threaten the peace and good government of the Commonwealth. This bill will expand the offence to include urging violence on the basis of ethnic or national origin. Also, it will expand the offence to include urging violence against an individual and it will cover the use of violence even when the peace and good government of the Commonwealth is not threatened. That will be a lesser offence.

This is a tough law but it is not any longer a law that threatens free speech. In the same spirit the treason offence—properly called ‘providing assistance to the enemy’—will be amended to make it clear that the offence must involve assistance to the enemy that is real or concrete.

Finally I should mention that the measures in this bill were developed in close consultation with the community. The Attorney-General released a discussion paper in 2009 and there was a good level of public participation and submissions received in response to the discussion paper. Indeed, the process exemplifies the level of consistent well-focused community consultation and responsive participation that will ensure that our counterterrorism legislation is properly understood, is appropriately targeted and does meet community needs and community expectations. Some of the measures that were included in the discussion paper, I should mention, are not in this bill. Those are measures that will require the states to amend their legislation which refer power to the Commonwealth. I understand that the government will continue to work closely with the states to progress those measures. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Public Security and Policing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the cognate bill, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. First of all I congratulate the government and the Attorney-General for establishing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which succeeds the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. The major change in this is that the Australian Federal Police will now fall under the parliamentary joint committee, which I think is a really good idea. It is going to give members of parliament a greater insight into the Australian Federal Police in that they will find out precisely what is happening with the police and look at how legislation can improve law enforcement in this country.

However, in saying that, I now have to give the government a bit of a whack, as the Australian Federal Police in 2008-09 had their efficiency dividend increased by one or two per cent, which basically meant $24 million off the AFP’s operating budget. This seemed quite crazy at the time, because you had President Obama in the US doing all he could to ensure law enforcement actually received further funding. But over here, under Prime Minister Rudd, we were seeing budget cuts. In the 2009-10 budget the Australian Federal Police budget was cut by $8.1 million and its counterterrorism program was cut by $1.4 million. I have raised before the issue of the AFP’s counterterrorism branch in Sydney. They suffered severe cutbacks. This year, again, in the 2010-11 budget $23.5 million in savings was imposed on the AFP—or maybe this has been diverted to other programs. We see that the AFP had an increase of funding for border protection. I would rather see that money, if there were no policy change, going to the Australian Federal Police.

When we look at the Australian Crime Commission, we see that it has been gutted so badly by the Rudd government. The Australian Crime Commission was set up to have both state and territory police and the Australian Federal Police seconded to work at a national level together to take on serious and organised crime. And yet we have seen the Rudd government make cutbacks in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 budgets. In total, about 22 per cent of staff were cut. In fact we have had the ability for the state police to work with the AFP pretty much dismantled, because the Rudd government would not pay the bills of the seconded police members. When it comes to law enforcement, the best approach to take on the most serious criminals and gangs in this country is to have police forces working together. Elite criminals do not just work in one state; they work interstate and internationally. The Australian Crime Commission, with all the law enforcement agencies working together, was the perfect weapon of choice to go after serious and organised crime.

We have a major gang problem in this country. Sadly, we had the incident at Sydney Airport, where an outlaw motorcycle gang member was actually killed in front of the public. This generated a response from the Prime Minister that he would do everything he could to take on the gangs. But nothing has happened. Because we do not have anti-association laws in my home state of Victoria, we are now seeing outlaw motorcycle gang members from all over the country making Victoria the place to be if you are a bikie. Even the Australian Crime Commission estimates that outlaw motorcycle gangs account for anywhere up to 15 per cent of drug movements around this country.

The first thing we need to do is set up a national gangs database. This is absolutely crucial. We need to work out the number of gangs in this country, whether it be street gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs or, as we recently saw on the front page of the Age in Victoria, Asian gangs. My background is that I was a member of the Victoria Police organised crime squad. On the 15th floor of the St Kilda Road Police Complex we had the Asian gangs squad. They were brilliant. They could tell you anything about Asian crime and gang members. Sadly, the Asian gangs squad and the organised crime squad were closed down. Under the previous government, CrimTrac was established. This is a vehicle for police and law-enforcement agencies all over the country to undertake searches to find out if there are warrants out on offenders. It is also used to store details about missing persons and firearms licences. This would be the perfect place to hold a national gangs database.

We should remember that prisons are the place where terrorists are most likely to be recruited and brainwashed. Especially in the UK and America, there are so many people detained for terrorist offences that they actually have their own gangs in the jails. A lot of people are joining the extremist Muslim gangs for protection. They can join a number of prison gangs. This is an issue for New South Wales in particular, where more people are apprehended and detained in custody. Australia really needs to place great emphasis on ensuring that prisons are not a breeding ground for terrorists. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was recruited in a UK prison. That is of great concern. So the first thing the government needs to do is establish a national gangs database where all the law enforcement agencies can go.

Secondly, as I said before, Kevin Rudd promised to be tough on crime but he has not been tough at all. This is very sad. I know that members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission on both sides of the chamber have been very disappointed in the cutbacks to the secondment of members. Anyone who has had dealings with police would realise that the secondment of members and investigators working hand-in-hand right across the country is the weapon of choice against organised crime. As a former detective, I can tell you that elite criminals move from state to state and there is no better way of tracking them than by having a task force that works right across the country to exchange ideas and intelligence and follow the criminals from state to state.

I congratulate the government on the amendments relating to treason, sedition and changes to the offence of ‘urging violence’. I made a speech on 28 November 2005 in which I expressed concern about the sedition laws. I mentioned in that speech that trying to work out whether these offences could be used or not used was going to get police investigators into a lot of difficulty. This is the right decision and it has been a long time coming. I will give credit where credit is due. I know it was based on the UK model, and it is the right way forward.

When it comes to other aspects, I am still greatly concerned about the preventative detention legislation and cutbacks, under part 1C of the Crimes Act, from 14 days to seven days. To me you need to give the investigators all the powers and tools they can have. Australia has been, in some cases, very lucky; but in other cases it has been brilliant detective work. I know, through my colleagues back in the Victorian Police, where you may have a homicide investigation into the murder of four or five people it takes up a lot of time and resources. Can you imagine if we had an incident, God forbid, in this country where we had a large number of people killed at the one time? As we saw in the UK, they were seizing so many computers, checking mobile phones—it became an absolute nightmare. That is why their detention times have been a lot longer. With our preventative detention, the investigators still do not have the ability to put any allegation at all to a suspect in custody; they have to be released or arrested under part 1C of the Crimes Act. When we were in government I was critical of that decision, and I have not changed my position on it.

In recent times I put it to the Victorian Police: would they use the Commonwealth offence powers or use their own? In actual fact they said they would use their own, which is ‘reasonable time’. I honestly believe that that is what it should be, to give the investigators all the time in the world they need. Sadly, the only way this is ever going to come to light is when, tragically, some incident does take place. I believe that with the Haneef case, and my recollection of Four Corners and listening to the Australian Federal Police, they did not use preventative detention legislation. I believe it was because they knew they could not ask any questions and they basically ran out of time. They did not use ‘reasonable time’. I believe at that time they had a 48-hour limit. Again, that is something I highlight to the government. I raised that with the Attorney-General in the consideration in detail stage of the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010. I put that question to him and he said that he would not be making legal comment. We really need to ensure that these issues are addressed, because it is crucial that our investigators have all the powers in the world to do the job they need to do.

I will leave it there. There are some good aspects in the bill—as I said, like the changing of ‘sedition’ to ‘the urging of terrorism’—that make a lot of sense. But, again, the government really must get back on the game and fund the Australian Federal Police the way they should be. They are wasting a lot of money on border protection because they have changed the policies, and again with the Australian Crime Commission. To me that is the key to taking on serious and organised crime in this country, and the government is definitely failing on that.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010two bills which I strongly support. I am really happy to follow my friend the member for La Trobe. I do agree with him on a number of things, but sometimes he has to let that political bias just slip off his collar. I do pay respect to the occupation he came from. I know he was a detective in the Victorian Police, a group of people I have had the honour to represent on numerous occasions before coming into this parliament.

We are very much in a rapidly changing world when it comes to issues of terrorism—and, as my friend would no doubt hasten to point out, the nature of organised crime. As a national government we have a responsibility to protect all our citizens. Indeed, it is probably the single-most central position of government to ensure national security.

In doing so, our laws will not stay static. We need to make sure our laws actually are capable of protecting citizens by giving the levels of threat and the natures of those threats. The proposed amendments included in this package of reforms are designed to give the Australian community confidence that our counterterrorism laws are precisely that, and that they are precise and appropriately tailored, and that our law enforcement agencies and our security agencies have the necessary investigative tools they need to combat and counter terrorism as it applies.

Additionally, the purpose for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill is to establish the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement that will replace the former Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. It will broaden that committee so it applies not only to the Australia Crime Commission but also to the Australian Federal Police. This is a matter which has been subject to considerable input over a long period of time. It is certainly something that we undertook to do to at the last election.

I particularly thank for their submissions—obviously they were made to the government at that stage, who did not act on it; but the submissions also made it to the opposition, which is what we were prior to the election of November 2007—the Police Federation of Australia, also a body which I had the opportunity to work for for a prolonged period of time and to consult to, and its CEO, Mark Burgess, as well as Jon Hunt Sharman, who is the president of the Australian Federal Police Association. Both of those bodies were very strong in their lobbying to ensure that a similar oversight that we provided to the Australian Crime Commission would be provided to the AFP. The basis of that came about, indeed, from the Clarke review of the Haneef case. In that inquiry a number of things were looked at, a number of things were addressed and a number of recommendations were made.

One of the things that always stood out to me—because this is a change which has been agitated for by the Australian Federal Police Association—was, ‘Why would they want to put themselves under greater scrutiny?’ The fact is that they have a regard for their professionalism, their commitment and operating to the letter of the law. Also, the fact is that they want to make sure we will not get ourselves into another situation where a policing activity became, as it did, a political football. The way that developed was a low point for Australian politics. One way to correct that for the future is to provide a degree of oversight of the activities of the AFP.

I know that I had discussions at the time with various people in the leadership positions of the AFP, and I know that at one period of time these changes would have been resisted. They thought that it was inappropriate to have government oversight of a law enforcement agency of the nature of the AFP. However, the AFP has seen first-hand—because they have been part of the inquiries conducted by the joint parliamentary committee into the ACC—what that oversight is. This is not interference; this is oversight provided by the elected government and committee which also includes, on a bipartisan basis, members of the opposition from both houses. This is something that was not resisted by the rank-and-file members of the police force. It is something that they sought to have added to their role and to actually give a more transparent acceptance of the grave professionalism that was being discharged by their officers.

When you think about it, the role and functions of this committee are quite similar. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement will be responsible for providing broad parliamentary oversight on the AFP as well as the Australian Crime Commission, as I mentioned. The functions of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement will include monitoring and reporting to parliament on the performance of the ACC and its functions; the same in respect to the AFP and its functions; examining trends and changes—and this is the important part—in criminal activities, practices and methods; and reporting on the desirable changes to the functions, structures, powers and procedures of both the ACC and the AFP.

Unfortunately, my colleague the member for Latrobe has left, but I know he has been a very significant contributor to the joint parliamentary committee on the ACC and has been part of many of its recommendations. Oddly enough, this is one of the committee’s I can honestly say operates on a bipartisan basis. To date, I do not think there has been a minority position taken on that. The members of that committee certainly approach it on the basis of what is needed—what are the tools that our law enforcement agencies need to do the job that we expect them to do, which is to protect our communities. If that same approach is taken in our monitoring of the AFP, which it will be, this can only be of benefit, not only to the members of the AFP but to the AFP itself. That is one of the strong things that comes out of this.

The other thing that is important is examining the trends and changes in criminal activity in the Australian law enforcement field. One of the things that is certainly pretty clear to me is that there has been a change in serious and organised crime in this country. That is one of the reasons—and by the way it emanated from the recommendation of the Australian Crime Commission Committee or the PJC oversighting the Australian Crime Commission—why we introduced laws late last year on unexplained wealth. One of the things that was pretty clear in our examination of trends in Australia and overseas—particularly in Ireland and a number of the European states—was the need to address the act of criminality and to cause people under suspicion to explain their unexplained wealth. I know my colleague from La Trobe went some distance to explain the issue about bikies and having a gang register or something of that nature. I think in a modern police force what we really need, and we have recommended and will probably continue to recommend, is a national police management system. One of the things that probably does not help us is having six different jurisdictions and a Commonwealth having different police management systems, where people might cross the borders and do something else. You then do not know precisely what they have been doing elsewhere. One of the things that strikes me is it was clear to us, in the evidence given to our committee by the Australian Crime Commission, that we needed to do more—and we did. We brought down that legislation and regrettably, I note to the embarrassment of the member for La Trobe, it was watered down a little in its passage through the Senate. That might be something that needs to be revisited, in due course.

We are trying to be vibrant, as vibrant as the criminal element is, not only in this country but also internationally. We see that crime is not something that recognises geographic boundaries. It certainly does not recognise state or federal constitutions, nor does it limit itself in the way it applies itself to-ing and fro-ing overseas. One of the things we need to look at is best practice and how we provide the necessary tools to empower our law enforcement agencies to do what they need to do, which is protect our community, to address issues of organised crime and, importantly, in the raft of bills before us today, to provide counterterrorism.

As the member for Macquarie is currently in the chamber, I should mention that he has played an extraordinary role in shaping law enforcement legislation not only in this parliament but also in the New South Wales parliament. Particularly when it came to sedition laws, he took a very strong view—a politically less popular view than his Premier might have liked at that stage! I have known the member for Macquarie to be forthright throughout his time in public life. He has made a significant contribution to the development of the New South Wales government’s approach to law enforcement and he has also made a significant contribution to the development of the Rudd Labor government’s approach to law enforcement and counter-terrorism.

We are in extraordinary times. Going back before 9/11, I do not think we were thinking the same way about counter-terrorism as we do today. There is no point in simply saying that we are working our way through these things. We will continue to have reviews of terrorism based legislation. Every piece of counter-terrorism legislation we put through this House winds back people’s liberties. There is no question about that. The member for Denison is in the chamber. He is a person who champions civil rights and he does so quite responsibly. He acknowledges that everything we do in this regard winds back someone’s rights. So we should not necessarily wind back those rights unless it is evidence based and needs to be done to ensure the protection of our community. That is the framework we should be operating in and that is how we should continue to develop laws in this place.

We have had to act upon a number of recommendations from the Clarke inquiry into the Haneef case and I would like to mention a couple of them. But I would firstly like to say that this bill will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Crimes Act 1914, the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945, the National Security Information (Criminal And Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. In terms of schedule 1 of the proposed amendments to the treason and sedition offences that are currently outlined in division 80 of the Criminal Code, the government accepts the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which include removing the term ‘sedition’ and replacing it with the phrase ‘urging violence’ and clarifying and modernising the elements of that particular offence. Once again, I pay credit to the member for Macquarie in respect of this amendment. Schedule 1 of the bill will also extend the offence to cover the urging of violence to stop a group or individuals on the basis of national or ethnic origin, race, religion or political opinion—even in relation to the political system itself. That certainly streamlines the provision and gives greater definition of what it is that we are seeking to outlaw in that respect.

Schedule 2 of the bill includes the proposed amendment to division 102 of the Criminal Code. This division of the code contains the definition of ‘terrorist organisation’, the process of proscribing terrorist organisations and the terrorist organisation offences. This will amend the definition of ‘advocates’ to clarify that ‘an organisation advocates the doing of a terrorist act if the organisation directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a substantial risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person to engage in a terrorist act.’

When proscribing organisations, it also became necessary to look at the time that those organisations would remain proscribed. Importantly, in this act that time is going to be extended for a period of 12 months; it will extend the current listing of a terrorist organisation from two years to three years.

There are many other amendments which relate to the definitional provisions to implement the government’s policy to ensure that various matters are consistent throughout Commonwealth legislation. I understand, particularly in terms of same-sex partnerships, that these matters must be agreed to by the states. However, I am advised that states and territories have already indicated their approval for these matters to proceed.

In the Clarke review it was also indicated that there should be certain changes, particularly to the exercising of search and detain powers by the police—in particular, the powers of stop, search and question in relation to terrorist acts. Division 3A of the Crimes Act 1914 was inserted into the Crimes Act by the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 to provide police with specific powers in relation to terrorist acts in addition to the existing police powers. However, division 3A does not provide police with the power to enter without a warrant premises where there is material that may pose a risk to the health or safety of the public in emergency circumstances relating to terrorism offences.

What is being proposed here is that where there is such a risk to the public—it may be through the making of explosives or something of that nature—police will have the power under schedule 4 to enter those premises without a warrant to address that emergency circumstance. As I understand it, that does not relate to entering premises with a view primarily to collecting evidence, but rather it relates to protecting the public. Schedule 5 proposes that the amendments will modify the search warrant provisions of part 1AA of the Crimes Act so that in emergency situations the time available for law enforcement officers to re-enter those premises will be extended by another 12 hours or where the issuing authority addresses the exceptional circumstances and prescribes a longer time.

Again, those amendments are based on public safety—ensuring that the public are protected from harm. There are many other issues that I would like to address, but I am out of time. I just say that we are committed to looking after the men and women of the Australian Federal Police, who do such a sterling job in protecting our community. I praise their professionalism, commitment and dedication to their uniform and the way they do their jobs. One of the things that we must do in this place is ensure that they have the appropriate tools and skill sets to do the job that we ask of them—and that job is to protect our community. I commend these bills to the House.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening certainly not to oppose theNational Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, the cognate bill and the formation of the joint committee but to once again put on the record a defence of liberty through the rule of law. I also once again wish to make some points about our role in the process of developing precise and appropriate laws for various operational and strategic agencies to implement. Where it is necessary to put in place special circumstances for exemptions to those processes, we need to do it in a precise and clearly defined manner. Whilst this legislation is, in a broad sense, a step forward on that front, there is more work to be done. I hope that attorneys-general and both federal and state executives continue to be vigilant in appreciating and enhancing the rule of law through the development of transparency and accountability in our law, because we are stronger if those broad principles are put in place.

I concur with the member for Werriwa about the role that both the member for Macquarie and the member for Denison have played over a long period of time as fellow travellers on both liberty and rule of law in what has been a swing of the pendulum over the last decade towards the wants and needs of the state—at times at the expense of citizens’ liberties, both individual and community. I wish them both well—if this is indeed the last sitting! Whether it is being active in the form of writing letters to the editor or whether it is taking higher office all the way through to secretaries-general of the United Nations, I wish you well in your travels and look forward to staying in touch.

Bob Debus (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe the member for Denison is going to become a chief justice!

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I am glad that I said what I said! As this is wide-ranging legislation, I will also be a little bit wide-ranging. I will start with some broad principles and then try to come back, in the time I have, to the individual. The broad principles that I have just been talking about are my first point. Democracy is at its strongest if the rule of law is our safe port. Both in the context of shield and sword, when we need to attack and when we need to defend, it is critical for public policymakers in the citizens house to understand that when it gets tough, when questions of community safety are put upon us, the consistent safe port is in the processes, established over hundreds of years, attached to natural justice and rule of law principles.

I have a weird habit of reading more than one book at a time, and the two books I am reading at the moment are My Life with the Taliban and a book about the role that John Hatton played, called The Stench in this Parliament. I did not think the books were connected until I started to think about this speech, but in that role of sword and shield, attacking and defending with respect to upholding the rule of law, the Hatton story is very good with regard to whether we are comfortable as community and citizenry in handing over complete power to our own agencies. Hatton’s great crusade was royal commissions into police in New South Wales. Therein lies an example and a cautionary tale for all of us when we are thinking about those crazy, brave moments when the easiest policy decision is just to hand over the issue to the police, or hand it over to the military and say, ‘Go your hardest, clean it up and sort it out,’ and walk away as upholders of the process of the rule of law. That is in a defensive and a shield sense with regard to the rule of law. My Life with the Taliban is a story that I would recommend to everyone to read in relation to what we, over the last decade, have clearly defined as ‘terrorists’—which we have used everything in our power to hunt down, lock up and try to stamp out in what is proving over time to be a somewhat futile exercise as we find ourselves still deeply entrenched in conflict.

Whilst the member for Macquarie was probably a lot wiser than me in quoting former Prime Minister Menzies with regard to wanting to protect liberties at all times but not doing it at the expense of one’s own liberties, I would like to make the same point but by quoting someone who was held at Guantanamo Bay for seven years and released without any charges—an Afghani local who just ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. He made a similar point in a poem he wrote whilst being held, which I will quote:

This ‘freedom’ put a proud people in chains

And turned free men into slaves

               …            …            …

This is “democracy” by the whip

And the fear of chains

With a whirlwind at its core

Whilst it is exactly the same point that the member for Macquarie was making when quoting a former Prime Minister, we see that point being made by a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay in the form of a poem. He was released without charge after seven years in a process that I would hope over time is reflected on as one that was questionable in its delivery of the rule of law and questionable in its ability to achieve the outcomes that it intended to achieve when first established.

I am a strong defender—in case you had not noticed—of the principles behind natural justice and the rule of law. The very foundations of being a member of parliament and a believer in parliamentary processes should be an example of that for all of us. Therefore, the brave, the strong and the macho position, in my view, is to be vigilant in the defence of those rule of law principles. That is why I am pleased to see some greater precision around some of the issues in this package, including the change to sedition laws and the change to language defined as ‘urging violence’, including the urging of violence against an individual and the urging of violence which does not involve the state or Commonwealth. I think they are sensible steps forward for the law in this country. The fact that we are seeing better definitions attached is good and sensible.

Likewise, the formation of the joint committee for law enforcement—and including the AFP in that—and oversight as part of the process certainly sit comfortably with the principles that I have just talked about. I think it is as much in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission’s best interests to have that oversight as it is in the community’s best interests to have that oversight and for there to be a meeting place in this building of a joint committee that allows for, in a sense, a clearing house of any of the issues in and around the processes of the rule of law. So it is certainly a welcome move.

I do, however, continue to raise concerns around some of these broader questions. The word ‘enemy’ has appeared in the language in some of this legislation. If we are being precise and are keen to define what we are talking about—and without me being cute in raising a concern—we should ask: what is our enemy and who is our enemy? That would be a worthy exercise in trying to be precise and trying to define. Likewise, there is an issue with the language around terrorism itself. What is a terrorist? Who are the terrorists?

Following on from the Clarke inquiry, if we are going to use this sort of language, and use it as if everyone knows what it actually means, it would be nice to have some clear definitions and some precise boundaries around exactly what is a terrorist today when compared to a common criminal, compared to a freedom fighter and compared to the many other types of definitions we could potentially throw under that same banner of ‘terrorist’ if we wanted to. Likewise, there are the definitions around an emergency situation. That language has crept into this legislation. Whilst it is hard to predict the future and where such a situation would arise, if we are being true to our intent—and I give government credit for trying to be precise—it would be good to be very clear in the language around what is an emergency situation and when and how such powers would and could be used into the future.

They are my broad points. Basically I have no opposition. Essentially it is a step forward. But I certainly do not see it as the end of the road. Hopefully, we will see further action in the quest for precision. I hope the Attorney-General is a flag-bearer in upholding these principles around the rule of law so we can get the best form of freedom and the best form of democracy that we can. Taking the broad and turning it into the defined in all of this, to achieve the best form of freedom and the best form of democracy there must be an obligation on every single citizen to know the law, to understand the law and to understand rights and responsibilities. To use some of the former Prime Minister’s language about personal education, it is about being alert, aware and also safe. If individuals take on that responsibility as part of a broader citizenry and a broader community then we will build the strongest society and the strongest democracy that we can.

Whilst the Attorney-General is in the chamber, I want to put an issue to him that we have had several discussions about. He very kindly visited the mid-North Coast to meet with many of the community service providers on the issue of community legal centres. We have a gaping hole on the mid-North Coast when it comes to the delivery of community legal services. People on the mid-North Coast are expected to get in contact with services that are four to five hours drive away. After 15 years of public service, I know that community legal services on the mid-North Coast are simply nonexistent; access is just not happening. I know we have had lots of discussions about it. There is great anticipation about any potential announcements. I once again look to the Attorney-General to provide us with some wonderful news! I certainly hope he can do that, and we will support his claim for Chief Justice if he delivers! This is a good package. It is a step forward. I hope every individual in their daily life considers the role they have in knowing and understanding the law. I think there are things that attorneys-general and I can do in helping in that regard—that is, in the context of community legal centres.

Once again, I urge everyone in this place not just to pass the ball to the operational or strategic agencies on some of those broad principles but to be macho in holding on to them, defending them and working hard to make sure the agencies do what we as representatives want them to do in both defending and attacking when it comes to issues around the rule of law.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyne and, previously in this debate, the member for Macquarie for their thoughtful contributions on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and related bill before the parliament. It is true, as all speakers have observed, that we are not immune from the passions of our day and, when a society is fearful, it is a natural first reaction to respond vigorously and to take measures necessary for that society’s protection. In the course of doing that there is need for reflection to ensure that the remedy is not worse than the malady against which it is directed.

I have been in this parliament as a member of the House of Representatives standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs, however named, or as the minister responsible for law and justice, however named, for more than 20 years and I have seen the ebb and flow of debate in relation to these enormously consequential matters. Can I say in respect of the legislation in front of us: this is good and incremental legislation. It reflects a thoughtful balance that has been informed by considerable independent input but also by the long work of many parliamentarians.

I think it was nine years ago, when Labor was in opposition and I was the shadow minister for justice and customs, that I introduced into the parliament a bill to establish a joint standing committee of this parliament to do precisely what the bill now envisages—that is, to establish an oversight of the Australian Federal Police. At the time, that was not recommended, but it does show that work that is done by parliamentarians in this place builds a foundation upon which later reflection can be had and that work we sometimes see as having been a failure at its time is not necessarily so—that is, that those of us who work to argue and to advance a coherent and logical position in respect of these issues can have successes many years after we felt the first sting of failure.

These measures are important because they are in areas where this parliament is always going to be confronted by the very real necessity to take strong action to deal with threats that come either from organised criminal gangs or from terrorist organisations, and there is, of necessity, no public sympathy for those who threaten us. But, just as the Athenians sent out a fleet to destroy a city that had offended them and, after being persuaded the next day by Pericles to have second thoughts, sent out another trireme to chase down the fleet, sometimes we in this parliament have to be the assembly that has the opportunity for calmer reflection to ensure that we do not go too far.

Much of the work that is done in that regard is done behind closed doors in private. It has been recognised, I think, by the member for La Trobe, who comes from the other side of the chamber, that it is rare that there is anything other than constructive debate within those committees; that we do not break up into partisan differences when we come privately to discuss these great challenges. Jason Wood, the member I referred to, has a history as a former policeman. I served on committees of which he was also a member, and the differences we bring and the perspectives we offer by way of different starting points are enormously valuable to inform the work of this parliament and, through that, change the outcomes in legislation.

I want to reflect on the anti-terrorism aspect of the legislation that we are passing. The work of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, previously the Joint Standing Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, was absolutely critical to ensuring that there was a significant response within the parliament so that the measures that were taken in the heat of the events after September 11 did not overreach. People will argue that, nonetheless, those measures in some estimations went further than they would have wished. Equally, others would say that there was an imperative case that this parliament act to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Both starting perspectives have a very significant element of validity.

It is only in the privacy of a room where you can sit down and look at those strategic, law-enforcement and security issues in a rather bipartisan way that you can create a reporting document that goes to your colleagues and can inform a debate that actually leads to changed outcomes. That was very successful and it also involved some people of courage. I note the tributes that have already been paid to the member for Macquarie in his former role as attorney. There was also the former Chief Minister of the ACT who took a position which was contentious and, I thought, courageous at different stages.

Without people in this parliament who are prepared to be contentious and courageous from time to time this assembly does not do any good work. But that is not the only thing that works. It is also the work that is done by the joint committees acting responsibly, often without anyone sighting their discussions. For quite obvious reasons—if you are discussing the strategic orientation of intelligence services or law enforcement, these are not matters necessarily that will be discussed in public—many of their hearings are in camera. It is in those calm meetings, without the flourish of public attention, that much good work is also done, and the balance has come out well.

I congratulate the attorney, who is with us today, on continuing to be receptive to hearing the concerns of his colleagues on all sides of the chamber. This is a set of issues that concerns not merely those with Labor and Liberal allegiances but also Independents, Greens and all those others who make up this rather healthy and ferocious democracy of ours.

I should not take any greater time because, in a sense, we are all agreed and there is no necessity to repeat much of the debate that has already been had on this set of legislative measures, but I do hope that at some stage we also take the opportunity to look at an overall assessment of the number of parliamentary committees and whether it might be time for some serious strategic attempt perhaps to reduce the number of those committees but also to strengthen the resources available to them so that they can do the focus work that they need to undertake. This is a really important area of parliamentary oversight that we have now added, that of the Australian Federal Police, but it is a large one.

When the Keating government was in office they established an organisation called the Office of Strategic Crime Assessments which had a relatively short life and I think published only two reports. The idea of that was to look at the strategic forward settings for where our law enforcement efforts should be most focused. At that time it was looking at over the horizon threats from Russian organised crime and various other anticipated threats that we might be subject to. The issues of our present day, which we are perhaps not sufficiently focusing on, are economic crimes.

There is a conference to be held in Lisbon in about four weeks’ time under the auspices of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, focusing on the threat to the nation state of economic crime. That might be a very important area for this committee to look at in terms of the policy settings and resourcing of the Australian Federal Police. But if those committees are not properly resourced and if members of parliament belong to too many committees such that they cannot undertake their appropriate supervisory work with the rigour and support that is required, then these processes really will become lip service rather than truly effective.

I do think it is time. I understand that each area of policy calls on the establishment of a committee, and the like, but the number of parliamentary committees has grown enormously and the resources for each committee—by way of secretarial and research assistance—have diminished accordingly. The resources have not increased. To make this sort of committee work you need parliamentarians who are prepared to devote a significant amount of their parliamentary service to it, as they do always on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

As a member of that committee for a number of years, I witnessed the very intense and careful work of members because they knew that it was a crucial committee that needed very significant attention. People who came onto that committee took it terribly seriously, as did those who came before them. Equally, this committee will not work unless people give it the same kind of significant attention. I think it is perhaps something for future parliaments, as I get ready to transform from a rooster to a feather duster in some months’ time—certainly before April next year—when the next election is held. I suppose as a parting comment to those who will be ongoing, as the member for Lyon will be, it is worth considering whether the number and resources of committees have been become such that the truly important work of these committees in their supervisory and oversight roles cannot be adequately resourced.

With those remarks, I commend the Attorney for this legislation and I commend all members who have participated in such a constructive way. I acknowledge that the heartbeat of this House is often not seen by the community. The heartbeat of this House is the work that is done quite often unseen and which results in improved outcomes through the collaborative work of these committees. I thank the chamber.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I also thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and also the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. Before I make my concluding remarks regarding the bill, I will just address some comments that have been raised during the course of what was overall a very constructive debate.

The member for Stirling referred to changes to the definition of a terrorist act and the creation of a terrorist hoax offence in the Criminal Code. The honourable member is correct that these proposals were included in the discussion paper released last year for consultation. However, I should clarify that while the government is still pursuing these amendments they are not included in the bill due to required changes to state and territory referral legislation that are being considered by the states. The process is ongoing and we will look to introduce these amendments in a separate piece of legislation in due course.

The member for La Trobe made some comments about criminal gangs and suggested that the Prime Minister had not been tough on crime. Might I draw the honourable member’s attention to the criminal association offences recently introduced by the government in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2010 and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill (No. 2) 2010 and, indeed, the range of measures in those bills which are now acts of parliament. Also, the member, with respect, should note the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework, which I launched last year. I indicate that Australia, together with attorneys from the United States, Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand, is progressing the fight against organised crime at an international level. The government takes the threat of serious and organised crime very seriously. In addition to those measures, some $14 million has been allocated in this budget to the establishment of a new criminal fusion centre together with $23 million to improve the resources that are available to AUSTRAC to assist in the fight against organised crime.

More broadly addressing issues raised in the debate, I remind the House that the government provided in this current budget $1.1 billion over four years to strengthen Australia’s national security. That is part of a broader package of $4.3 billion in addition to funding incorporating national security, border protection, aviation security and measures in support of Australia’s Defence Force.

The member for Lyne raised more generally that any response to national security must be consistent with and, indeed, underpin the rule of law. In turn, of course, the rule of law is a hollow concept if it is not accessible. That lack of accessibility to redress grievances can itself be a source or cause of alienation of some sectors and individuals in the community, which in turn can be the start of the process of radicalisation. I do not think it is drawing too far a bow to say that the involvement of the government in providing legal services to communities is at the heart of an effective legal system and, indeed, one on which the rule of law is based. In that respect, the federal budget included $154 million for legal assistance services. I am informed that this is the largest and most significant injection of new funding into the legal assistance sector in well over a decade. I am pleased to report to the member for Lyne that the government will be allocating $200,000 per annum over the next three years to assist with the establishment of a community legal centre in the mid-North Coast region.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely fantastic!

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that interjection. In allocating the funding, I note the findings of the recent mid-North Coast legal needs analysis report, which was drawn to my attention by the member for Lyne. It found that the mid-North Coast region has one of the highest levels of social disadvantage in New South Wales. The population well and truly exceeds, by comparison, the population of the ACT or, indeed, the Northern Territory or, for that matter, for the member for Denison, Tasmania, where there are far more extensive services. In each of those three other locations there are far more extensive resources available for legal assistance. I commend the member for Lyne for being such a vigorous and effective advocate on behalf of his constituents for greater access to community legal services to improve access to justice on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. It was certainly an argument that was well put and well advocated but also deserving.

In concluding my remarks, these two bills comprise a package of reforms to Australia’s national security and counterterrorism legislation aimed at ensuring our laws are appropriately targeted and accountable in their operation. The National Security Legislation Amendment Bill will implement the government’s responses to several independent and bipartisan parliamentary committee reviews of Australian national security and counterterrorism legislation, which were tabled in parliament on 23 December 2008. I join with the member for Denison in commending the work of these committees.

The legislative amendments are designed to clarify and improve the operation of the treason and sedition offences in the Criminal Code; enhance and clarify law enforcement powers to investigate terrorism under the Crimes Act 1914; to provide for regular review of organisations listed under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945; to improve the processes for protecting national security information in court proceedings under the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004; and also to extend the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to inquire into intelligence or security matters relating to any Commonwealth department or agency. As I indicated in the second reading speech, these measures will be in addition to, and operate alongside of, the government’s decision to appoint a reviewer of national security legislation.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill will establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement which will replace the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. This new committee will be responsible for oversight of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the role of the parliamentary committees, as I have mentioned and as the member for Denison has, and in particular note the valuable work conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is responsible for reviewing particular aspects of our national security agencies and other matters referred for review by the responsible minister.

The PJCIS played a significant role in the legislation we have considered today by virtue of having recommended a number of changes in two reviews, which included the Inquiry into the proscription of ‘terrorist organisations’ under the Australian Criminal Code which reported in September 2007 and the Review of security and counter terrorism legislation which reported in December 2006. The establishment of the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement will not detract from the valuable work conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I look forward to that committee’s continued contribution to Australia’s national security.

As members would be aware, both the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill and Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill have been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry. I understand the committee is due to report on the bills on 15 June 2010 and I will closely consider any recommendations made by the committee in due course.

The government is confident that the reforms contained in both of the bills that have been debated today deliver strong laws that protect our safety while preserving democratic rights and protecting our freedoms, consistent with the principle of the rule of law—which was the subject of my opening discussion. These measures will help prepare us for the complex national security challenges of the future. This government’s concerted efforts to continually review and refine our counterterrorism laws will ensure that the legislation is effective. It is bolstered by strong safeguards and accountability mechanisms, and it is responsive to community needs, expectations and values. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.