Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I am pleased today to be able to table two very important reviews on Australia's counterterrorism legislation.

The first review I am tabling is the annual report of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor for 2012. The monitor's role is created by legislation, to review Australia's national security laws and counterterrorism laws on an ongoing basis and determine whether they remain necessary, effective, proportionate and consistent with our international human rights obligations.

In his 2012 report the monitor, Mr Bret Walker SC, examined the definition of a terrorist act, the control order provisions, the preventative detention order regime and ASIO's questioning and detention powers. I thank Mr Walker for the extensive work he has done in compiling this report.

The second review is the Council of Australian Governments review into counterterrorism legislation. In 2005, COAG considered the evolving security environment in the context of the terrorist assaults in London that year and agreed that there was a clear case for strengthening Australia's counterterrorism laws. The Commonwealth government and the states and territories then enacted legislation to better deter and prevent potential acts of terrorism and prosecute them if they occurred. The legislation included control orders, preventative detention orders and certain emergency stop, question and search powers held by police. COAG agreed that they would review the necessity and effectiveness of the new laws after a period of time.

The COAG review committee consisted of six members, including the chair, the Hon. Anthony Whealy QC, a retired judge from the New South Wales Court of Appeal, as well as two accountability members, two law enforcement members and a prosecutorial member. Two of those members were from Commonwealth agencies, the remaining four represented the states and territories. The COAG review committee made 47 recommendations. I thank the review committee, and especially the chair of the committee, the Hon. Anthony Whealy, for the hard work and time they have put into this review.

Both reviews are very thorough and thought provoking. There is some overlap of the provisions that the monitor and the COAG review committee reviewed. However, the monitor only reviewed Commonwealth legislation whereas the COAG review committee reviewed Commonwealth as well as complementary state and territory legislation. With two such detailed reports from two different review processes it is inevitable that there will be differences of perspectives and indeed that is a value of having the two separate processes. These reviews enable governments to better assess the different options available to serve the Australian people. The government values both these reports and serious consideration will be given to them. Given the overlap in recommendations of the reports, the government will be considering both reports together, after consulting with the states and territories.

These reviews were both undertaken as part of the government's commitment to protect Australia, its people and its interests, while instilling confidence that our national security and counterterrorism laws will be administered in a just and accountable way. While these matters are not easily resolved, the matter foremost in my mind is ensuring the security and the freedom of the Australian people. In light of the recent terror attack in Boston, it is clear that it is as important now as it ever was to maintain strong capabilities in the fight against terrorism. Our counterterrorism framework has held us in good stead so far, but we cannot afford to stop being vigilant.

Both reviews will be available online later this afternoon. Mr Deputy Speaker, I present the COAG Review of counter-terrorism legislation and the annual report of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and a copy of my ministerial statement. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Stirling to speak for four minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Keenan speaking for a period not exceeding four minutes.

Question agreed to.

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

I rise to welcome the Attorney-General's tabling of the annual report of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Council of Australian Governments Review of counter-terrorism legislation. The coalition looks forward to giving careful consideration to these two documents. The suite of federal, state and territory laws that comprise our counterterrorism regime were controversial at the time when they were introduced and, mercifully, there have only been a few instances in which they have needed to be invoked, at least to their full extent. However, it cannot be denied that the threat of terrorism persists.

I endorse the Attorney-General's observation that, in light of the recent terror attack in Boston, it is clear that the maintenance of our counterterrorism capabilities is as important as it ever was and that, as the Attorney-General also observed, in keeping with our own traditions and way of life, the maintenance of these capabilities must be done in a just and accountable way. That is why in 2005, when the national suite of legislation was enacted by agreement amongst the Commonwealth, the states and the territories, the relevant governments agreed at COAG that the necessity and effectiveness of the laws should be subject to a coordinated review.

The annual report of the independent monitor is particularly welcomed by the coalition. The monitor was established only after a concerted effort on the part of the coalition back when the Rudd government was still young. A bill for the establishment of an independent monitor was introduced by the then member for Kooyong, Petro Georgiou, in early 2008. Mr Georgiou was immediately gagged by the Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler. In the other place an identical bill was introduced, by the then Liberal senator for Victoria Senator Judith Troeth, where it passed despite being opposed by the government. However, the government prevented it from proceeding beyond its first reading in this place. The government finally introduced its own flawed legislation, which only passed the parliament in 2010 after extensive amendment to ensure the monitor's independence. The coalition therefore derives considerable satisfaction from the tabling of the monitor's annual report.

The principle behind the establishment of the independent monitor and the COAG review is the protective principle. It is to add to the armoury of parliamentary surveillance another mechanism designed to ensure that the counterterrorism laws, which were amended so as to expand the executive and policing powers of the state in extraordinary times by introducing into our laws extraordinary measures, are not allowed to become ordinary measures by the passing of time. The government and the parliament were of the view that some traditional protections should be reviewed and the policing functions of the state should be extended through devices such as preventative detention and control orders, which were very controversial at the time, in service of the fundamental obligation of governments and parliaments—that is, to protect the public interest.

Those of us who remember those debates also remember that the government that introduced them, the Howard government, made it clear that these were extraordinary measures. It is to be hoped that the time comes when these laws are no longer necessary. However, it is clear, as the Attorney-General did observe, that that time is not yet. In the meantime it is appropriate that all Australian governments remain vigilant as to the appropriate use of these laws, and that is why the coalition welcomes the statement here today.