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

I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) marks an important step in the government's efforts to further strengthen Australia's robust national security laws and counterterrorism framework. It is broadly the same as the bill of the same title introduced into the Senate in November of last year—with the important additions of further safeguards recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Australians face the most significant threat from terrorism in our nation's history. The Australian government continues to work diligently towards combatting the threat we face from terror groups and individuals, both overseas and at home. Sadly, by any measure, the threat that we face has only risen.

Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. At least 62, although probably up to 68, Australians are believed to have been killed in the conflict already—we would expect that figure to rise—while approximately 40 Australians have returned to Australia after travelling to Syria or Iraq and joining groups involved in the conflict. Some of these returnees remain a significant security concern.

There are around 200 people in Australia being investigated for providing support to individuals and groups in Syria or Iraq, including through funding and facilitation, or seeking to travel.

The national terrorism threat level for Australia is 'probable'. This means there is credible intelligence that indicates that individuals or groups have developed both the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia. Since 12 September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised, 55 people have been charged as a result of 24 counter-terrorism operations around Australia. That is over half of all terrorism-related charges since 2001.

These numbers highlight the significance of the threat we face.

One of Australia's greatest strengths is our harmonious, diverse, multicultural, multi-faith community. This must be preserved and protected.

The measures introduced in this bill reflect operational learnings from recent counter-terrorism investigations. The bill also includes a number of recommendations from the Council of Australian Governments review of counter-terrorism legislation.

The bill seeks to maintain a careful balance between enhancing our law enforcement capabilities and protecting individual rights. To this end, the bill reflects the government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the 2015 bill. The provisions complement the earlier tranches of counter-terrorism measures introduced by this government since 2014.

The bill strengthens Australia's already robust counter-terrorism laws in several key areas.

Schedule 2—Control orders for young persons

First of all, the bill amends the existing control order scheme to provide that a control order may be issued against a young person from the age of 14 years.

Recent experience, including law enforcement operations, has shown that young persons can pose a significant risk to national security through their involvement in planning, supporting and executing terrorist acts.

Regrettably, recent events demonstrate the necessity of our law enforcement agencies being able to access the full suite of measures in relation to young persons.

Australia's national security legislation must provide law enforcement with appropriate tools to ensure the safety of the public and to ensure they are well equipped to respond to, and prevent, terrorist acts. This is the case even where the threats are posed by people under the age of 18.

A control order would only be issued against a person aged under 18 in the rare circumstances that it was required to:

The bill retains the existing safeguards in relation to young persons and introduces important new provisions applicable to 14- to 17-year-olds. These include:

In response to recommendation 2 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's advisory report, the bill includes a requirement for the Australian Federal Police to advise all people subject to a control order of their right to obtain legal advice and legal representation. This provision will improve the safeguards not only for young people, as recommended by the committee, but for all people who are subject to control orders. Importantly, the bill also provides that, if a young person to which this section applies is not legally represented, the court will appoint a legal representative for that person.

Schedules 8, 9 and 10—New monitoring powers

Schedules 8 to 10 contain amendments to Commonwealth legislation to ensure law enforcement agencies can monitor compliance with control orders.

With the increased use of the control order regime to address the risk posed by foreign fighters, these measures will ensure that we can effectively monitor compliance with the obligations, restrictions and prohibitions imposed by control orders.

The amendments will ensure investigative tools are sufficiently adapted to monitoring the risk of possible breaches of control orders. Warrants will be available for the purposes of:

These powers will only apply to individuals subject to a control order. Importantly, in response to recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the use of these powers will be subject to oversight from the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Schedule 15—National security information

Schedule 15 provides a broader range of options for protecting national security information that is used in control order proceedings. With the increased tempo of counter-terrorism operations, it is sometimes necessary for our law enforcement agencies to take action earlier to protect community safety. To prevent death or serious harm, agencies may need to act before a full brief of evidence can be developed.

Consequently, those agencies will need to place a greater reliance on information from intelligence partners and sensitive sources.

The changes introduced in this bill will provide greater protection to national security information that is considered in control order proceedings. This is vital in order to maintain critical intelligence partnerships and to protect sensitive capabilities.

These provisions amend existing arrangements for the protection of sensitive information whilst balancing the rights of individuals involved. They will provide the court with a discretion to consider very sensitive national security information in support of a control order application that is not shown to the subject of the control order proceeding or their legal representative. However, the bill reflects the government's acceptance of recommendation 4 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the 2015 bill, to make clear that the subject of the control order proceeding must be provided with sufficient information about the allegations against them on which the control order is based to enable effective instructions to be given in relation to those allegations.

In addition, the government has implemented recommendation 5 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to create a special advocate role to represent the interests of persons subject to control order proceedings where the subject and their legal representative have been excluded from hearing or seeing sensitive national security information. The special advocate provides an important safeguard in ensuring that the procedural rights of the subject of a control order proceeding are upheld.

Whilst the bill creates the architecture for a special advocate role, some time will be needed for the supporting regulations and administrative arrangements to be established for the regime to work. The government will work swiftly to ensure these arrangements are put in place as soon as possible.

Consistent with the recommendation of the committee, the provisions in the bill providing for the protection of sensitive information in control order proceedings will commence without delay. The court will be able to continue to exercise its inherent powers to appoint a special advocate on an ad hoc basis.

Schedule 11 —O ffence of advocating genocide

To address the negative impact of hate preachers, Schedule 11 introduces a new offence of advocating genocide.

The Australian government is doing everything it can to tackle the threat posed by those who justify terrorism and who radicalise and recruit people to take part in terrorism.

The Australian government has a long and deep commitment to free speech. But the community cannot allow the advocacy of terrorism or of genocide, which is the incitement to murder an entire population, not an exercise of free speech.

In the current threat environment, the use of social media by radical Islamist preachers means the speed at which persons can become radicalised and could prepare to carry out acts in response to a call to commit genocide may be accelerated.

Law enforcement agencies require tools to intervene earlier in the radicalisation process to prevent and disrupt further engagement in terrorist activity. This new offence is intended to be one of those tools.

Schedule 18

Schedule 18 implements all of the recommendations made by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in his report on section 35P of the ASIO Act.

These amendments will introduce new protections to section 35P by establishing two separate offence regimes, with one regime to apply to persons who came to the knowledge or into the possession of the relevant information in their capacity as an entrusted person and a separate regime for 'outsiders'.

Under these new regimes the disclosure of information made by members of the community, except those who received information in their capacity as an entrusted person, will only constitute an offence if the information will endanger the health or safety of a person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation.

The amendments will also establish a defence of prior publication available only to persons who did not receive the relevant information in their capacity as an entrusted person.

It is critical that ASIO continues to have the tools and capabilities, such as the use of special intelligence operations, available to them in order to effectively combat the significant terrorism and espionage threats that Australia faces.

Indeed, in making his recommendations the monitor agreed that it is appropriate to retain disclosure offences, and that the special intelligence operation scheme is both necessary and proportionate.

The government understands the importance in maintaining public awareness of, and confidence in, the activities of our security agencies. The decision to implement all of the monitor's recommendations regarding section 35P in full further demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that we are achieving the right balance between the public interest and our national security requirements.

Concluding remarks

The government is committed to ensuring that Australia's national security laws and counterterrorism framework are as robust as possible.

We have worked closely with the states and territories to ensure that Australia's counter-terrorism framework is as good as it possibly can be. Countering terrorism and violent extremism is a priority for all Australian governments. We greatly appreciate the ongoing cooperation of the states and territories in this endeavour.

Consistent with the legislative reforms made in 2014 and early 2015, the government continues to monitor the adequacy of our legislation, and we will develop further necessary legislative amendments.

We will continue to take on board operational learnings and ensure that Australia's counter-terrorism framework adapts to the constantly changing threat environment.

We are committed to fulfilling the most important responsibility that the federal government has—protecting Australia, its people and its interests. We will continue to do so while instilling confidence that our national security and counter-terrorism laws will be exercised in a just and accountable way, consistent with the values of our free and open society.

This bill demonstrates the Australian Government's determination to proactively and effectively address this and to proactively and effectively address the evolving threats to our national security.

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

This latest national security bill introduced by the Abbott-Turnbull government, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016, was originally introduced to the Senate on 12 November 2015. On the same day, the Attorney-General wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to refer the provisions of the bill for inquiry and report by 15 February 2016. Submissions on the bill were requested by 10 December 2015, and hearings were held on 14 December 2015. The committee, of course, did report in February 2016. Now, the bill has reached this House for debate a little over a year since the bill was first introduced to the Senate.

This bill implements several recommendations from the Council of Australia Governments review of counter-terrorism legislation in 2012 and reflects developments from recent counter-terrorism investigations. The Abbott-Turnbull government has introduced several national security bills over the past four years. These previous legislative measures have provided additional and broader powers for intelligence agencies and law enforcement authorities.

Labor's motivation when it comes to national security matters is always the safety of the Australian community. Labor has continuously demonstrated our strong belief that our intelligence and security agencies and our law enforcement authorities should have the resources and capabilities they need to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism. Labor's support of our security agencies includes a commitment to ensuring that appropriate resources and powers are available to combat the threat of terrorism. Labor will work responsibly to give our intelligence and security agencies the support they need to combat future security challenges.

Labor is bipartisan on matters of national security, but our bipartisanship is not to be mistaken for a blank cheque. Labor's commitment to national security means that we will support necessary and effective measures to address threats to our nation, but it does not mean that we will give automatic support to every proposal that this government puts forward.

The measures in the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 ensure that our security agencies and police forces are equipped with a valuable tool for preventing terrorist attacks—the control order regime. The effectiveness and value of control orders for our police and security agencies has been demonstrated carefully and sparingly since control orders were introduced into Australian law in 2005. Just six control orders have been issued, reflecting that these orders are reserved for only the most serious of cases. Control orders will be sort if this will help to prevent a terrorist attack if the person against whom an order is sought has been trained, has participated in training with a listed terrorist organisation, has engaged in a conflict or hostile activity in a foreign country or has been convicted of a terrorism-related offence.

At the time of the introduction of the bill to the Senate, estimates provided by security agencies showed that there have been around 110 Australians fighting or otherwise engaged with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria and approximately 200 others providing support or facilitation from Australia. This increase in the number of Australians engaged with terrorist groups means that security agencies may need to respond with greater frequency than when the control order regime was first introduced in 2005.

Labor will always support legislation that makes Australians safer, but we must also ensure that the balance between public safety and privacy and civil liberties is appropriate. That is why we have advocated for improvements to the national security measures that we support, in line with Labor's values, to ensure that human rights are protected as much as possible. It is this constructive bipartisanship that we have brought to this bill and all national security legislation.

Most of this bill is largely uncontroversial, and Labor immediately supported those measures. But we have also argued for improvements and criticised the elements of the bill where the right balance between protecting community safety and protecting human rights and freedoms has not been achieved. Labor members have worked hard to ensure that we balance the need to provide our security agencies with the control order powers that they need with the safeguarding of the rights of any minors subject to control order applications. We have been careful to ensure that any such young person has the right to be provided with a lawyer to advise and represent them.

Labor members pursued improvements to the bill through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to ensure that this bill was fit for purpose. Our work resulted in 20 substantial recommendations for improvements to the bill, and, following negotiations with the government, we were able to reach agreement on the implementation of these recommendations.

To give context to the improvements to this bill that were achieved by the work of Labor members, it is useful to consider the scope of the bill in the original form in which the bill was first introduced into the Senate. The bill updates Australia's counterterrorism legislation in a number of ways, including allowing preventative detention orders to be issued to prevent not only a terrorist attack expected to take place within 14 days but also a terrorist attack that is capable of being carried out and could occur within 14 days; removing the ability of serving Family Court judges, as opposed to serving judges of the other federal courts, to issue preventative detention orders; the introduction of a new offence of advocating genocide; lowering the age of a person who may be subject to a control order to 14; improved protections for all minors subject to control order applications; the introduction of a new class of warrants to facilitate the monitoring of compliance with control order conditions; and allowing national security information not to be fully disclosed to a person who is the subject of a control order, where that is necessary.

Once introduced to the Senate, as I noted earlier, the bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report. The committee received submissions, held a public hearing and tabled its report on 15 February 2016. The committee made a number of recommendations to change the bill. These included improved reporting of the exercise of monitoring powers, including telecommunications interception and surveillance device control order warrants; improved drafting of the threshold conditions for preventative detention orders; introducing a requirement that, in order to meet the threshold to be convicted of the proposed 'advocating genocide' offence, a person must be reckless as to whether another person might engage in genocide on the basis of their advocacy; mandating that a young person subject to a control order proceeding be provided with a lawyer; making clear that the best interests of a young person are the primary consideration in any control order proceeding; mandatory reporting to the parliament on the use of national security information in control order proceedings; and legislation for a scheme of special advocates to be introduced by the end of 2016. This will ensure that lawyers are able to advocate for the interests of a person in control order proceedings from which they have been excluded on national security grounds.

There was significant public concern at the time that this bill was introduced and in the course of the hearings of the intelligence committee about the proposal to lower the minimum age for persons that can be subject to control orders to 14 years of age. Several representatives of the Muslim community particularly expressed their concerns that extending control orders to people as young as 14 years of age could be counterproductive and further alienate disaffected teenagers. They were also concerned that it could damage relations between young Muslim Australians and the police. The National Children's Commissioner, among others, also raised concerns about this proposal noting the potential of a control order to disrupt the education of a child and arguing that it is preferable to work with communities to divert children from the path to extremism.

Labor supports early intervention and community engagement as a way of countering emerging terrorist threats. In combination with strong counter-terrorism legislation, these are key approaches to preventing vulnerable young Australians from being groomed into extremist ideology. It is essential that the government seek wide and diverse advice on matters of national security and deradicalisation, as Labor does, from security agencies and from community leaders. I note the comment of ASIO Director-General Duncan Lewis:

If there is indeed a silver bullet to solving the issue of radicalisation, it is in the area of social cohesion.

Countering violent extremism programs need to be targeted, cohesive and properly funded. To work, they need to provide viable alternatives to disenfranchised young Australians who may be vulnerable to being groomed by terrorist recruiters. Security agencies must work with families and communities to challenge the lies told by those who wish to radicalise young Australians, and Labor accepts that control orders are one tool which should be available to our security agencies where appropriate. It is a tragedy that people as young as 14 are being targeted by organisations like ISIL for radicalisation, and Labor takes this threat seriously.

Labor understands the challenges faced by our security agencies and the challenge of identifying and resisting radicalisation in young Australians. My new colleague the member for Cowan has vast experience in fighting the radicalisation of young people. Her skills as an international expert in countering violent extremism will be of enormous benefit to this parliament.

Labor recognises the need for our anti-terror laws to be periodically updated to keep up with evolving threats. But each change must be treated carefully, particularly where minors are potentially affected. The age of criminal responsibility, under Australian federal law, is generally set at 14 years of age. To ensure that the bill properly implements Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended that the bill require the best interests of the child to be the primary consideration. The bill includes this requirement and also explicitly provides that a young person has the right to legal representation in control order proceedings. Labor insisted on these amendments because they strike a better balance between protecting the rights and civil liberties of young people and ensuring the safety of all Australians.

The COAG recommendation that the government give consideration to introducing a special advocate system for control order proceedings has been implemented by this bill. The bill now includes amendments that will establish such a system in response not only to that COAG advisory council report but also in response to the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in January 2016 and the PJCIS in February 2016.

As with all national security legislation, Labor has approached this bill responsibly and with the rights and safety of Australians in mind. We have offered the government our bipartisan support for measures to ensure the security and safety of Australians and have accepted the advice of security agencies and community leaders to strike the correct approach between protecting community safety and implementing appropriate safeguards. As a responsible opposition, Labor did not offer the government a blank cheque on this legislation. We will not do so with any piece of legislation. We will continue to approach national security in a considered manner informed by experience, expert advice and the recommendations of community, legal and law enforcement experts.

Labor's approach will ensure that this bill operates as intended and serves to protect our great country and its citizens. We have worked hard to achieve the right balance through the committee process and we have kept the need for appropriate safeguards in mind throughout the negotiations with the government. Labor will continue to work to ensure that our security agencies and national institutions have the powers and resources they need to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This proposed legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016, is appropriate. I want to examine and commend the process that was outlined by the member for Isaacs in his remarks and also by the Minister for Justice. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry included the very unusual idea of having public hearings of the committee. This is a practice that is commendable and has been introduced only in recent years. The examination of these issues and the allaying of concerns of members of the public that this parliament is both active enough and concerned about individual rights is a very good process.

As the member for Isaacs pointed out, this is one of several tranches of government legislation that the opposition has supported over a number of years to deal with the worsening situation that we have faced since the sudden appearance of Daesh in western Iraq and the raising of the so-called Islamic State in Syria based in Raqqa. The member for Isaacs outlined the number of Australians who, tragically, have been over there fighting with Daesh. The security services have outlined a number of people who are back here in Australia, having returned from the fight. We know, of course, of many people who have been radicalised—I thought 'groomed' was a very good expression that the member for Isaacs used—by these fiendish, wicked people misusing one of the great religions of the world in a political ideology designed to effect their violent and horrible aims.

We all remember the terrible scene of the Australian Daesh fighter pictured in Syria—I think it was in Raqqa—with his two young Australian sons, holding up the heads of beheaded Syrian citizens. That is one of the most terrible scenes that reflects on the seriousness of this issue for Australia. It is an iconic scene of the process that is taking place over there. It has involved not just those two young ones. We saw in Australia, in Parramatta, a 15-year-old and, in Endeavour Hills, a 17-year-old involved in incidents. One of the worst events that did not happen, thanks to the good work of the security services and the police, involved a 14-year-old in London who gave instructions to an 18-year-old here, who has since been convicted, to do on Anzac Day in Melbourne two years ago what was done in Nice. Imagine if that had happened.

I am very pleased with the process that the member for Isaacs outlined. The Labor Party has been entirely responsible. Of course the primary duty of any political party in this parliament is to ensure the right to life and peace and safety of Australian citizens. We have gone into this process with a great deal of seriousness. I want to outline—because most people will not remember this—where this all began. It began many years ago when Labor was in opposition, before the last Labor government, and the then Attorney-General proposed taking powers unto himself that would have allowed him to point to different organisations which he would then label as terrorist and have outlawed. Labor and the parliament thought it was a much better idea for those organisations to be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security so that we would have bipartisan support for that. That is not only good ethically, and it is not only good democratically for this parliament to have that view; it is actually politically necessary because of the make-up, for more than a decade, of the Senate of Australia. These laws might not have been passed—the five tranches of legislation so assiduously worked on by the opposition to improve them to see that they were balanced with civil liberties, balanced with privacy and at the same time gave the security services and the police the powers that are needed to handle the developing situation with terrorism.

These organisations were advanced to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee decided, on the basis of recommendations, which was or was not a terrorist organisation. As far as I understand it, the committee has never gone against the recommendations, which are put in great seriousness by the various agencies that are responsible. Part of the reason I am standing here today is a particularly insolent response I got from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in an answer to a question on notice about one of these organisations. The response pooh-poohed the role of the committee and said that all powers were in the hands of the Attorney-General and that these issues were briefly referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The shadow Attorney-General in his speech has outlined the fundamental importance of that committee in seeing that there is bipartisan support. I say to members of the government: you would not get this through the Senate if Labor opposed these kinds of resolutions. The irresponsible Greens political party speak against these amendments and this kind of legislation at every opportunity. They do not seem to be interested in the safety of Australian citizens. They do not seem to have the great national purpose that either of the two major political parties have. It is with that great purpose that we come to this parliament and that we consider these issues.

When I got this response from the foreign minister in Hansard in questions on notice, I thought about how this is the same minister who used to talk 18 months ago about the useful role that the Russians might provide in Syria. I constantly used to ask her about how the bombing was going in Aleppo. But it has almost got beyond the point of making jokes about the foreign minister's views on the Russians or the Assad regime in Syria. The tragedy that is happening in Aleppo, the breeding ground for terrorism, the fact that 330,000 people are being carpet-bombed—we may dislike Daesh, which springs from some elements of Sunni Islam, but to do what is being done there is a crime against humanity. It is going to come back to haunt all of us, so talking about the useful role of the Russians in Syria is a laughable prospect. It is a breeding ground for the kinds of people that we are going to have to be concerned about. Similarly, the same minister, who rightly comes into this House and talks about North Korean missile tests, never mentions even the American government, which has been involved in a nuclear deal with Iran, and never mentions the four ballistic missile tests that the equally dangerous regime in Iran has undertaken in the same period of time as the North Korean missile tests.

The member for Isaacs pointed out that there were 20 amendments that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended to improve these bills. It shows the worthiness of the process of referring this kind of legislation to the intelligence committee. I think it is particularly wise also to have the amendment on advocating genocide there. Some of the people, who, as the minister said, want to groom young people do not give direct signals. They do not say, 'Go out and do this terrorist act,' and therefore legislation might not cover what they are doing. They might say, 'Go out and kill all of these Ahmadiyya Muslims', a very nice group within the Muslim community that exists in Sydney. What would happen if they did that? Some of the people who have been groomed might be prompted to take action against that entirely peaceful group in the Muslim community if they were given such instructions by some of these devilish people involved in Daesh both here and there. Therefore it is appropriate, with 14 to 18-year-olds, that the government have the power to use control orders to prevent such tragedies happening here in Australia.

I will conclude by saying this legislation has been so thought through, so worked over that it has bipartisan support. As I said, it will then pass in the Senate with both government and the opposition support. Hopefully, as the member for Isaacs reminded me, some of this legislation will never be used. Some of the previous tranches of legislation will never be used. We hope that they will never be used because (a) the incidents will not happen and (b) other legislation will cover the acts of such people if, God forbid, they are undertaken.

I commend this legislation. I commend the process by which it has been examined. This is the Australian parliament at its best. It is an example of the kind of serious work we have done to protect the safety of all Australians.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016. As stated by the member for Isaacs, this legislation brings in some elements that we hope will never be necessary, will never be called upon. It certainly contains some challenging ideas for lawyers and for people concerned about children generally in Australia. Obviously there is nothing more important to all Australians than our national security. I do note up-front that there has been bipartisan support for this legislation.

National security is an issue for all Australians whether they are Indigenous Australians, whether their ancestors were transported as convicts in the early 1800s, whether their ancestors migrated to Australia from China in the gold rush of the 1850s and beyond, whether their great grandparents migrated from Europe after the Second World War, whether their parents came from Vietnam in the 1970s or from Lebanon in the 1970s, whether you came from Bosnia in the 1990s or from Sudan, or whether you came by boat and have been granted asylum as a refugee. Irrespective of all of these people that I have listed, leaving aside the Indigenous Australians, we do not call these people 'Australians that are second or third or fourth or 26th generation migrants'; we call these people 'Australians'. We should never be talking about people as second or third generation migrants as if that defines them. Irrespective of our background, we all have in common a desire to live and to bring up our families in a safe and secure country.

Labor has always taken a bipartisan stance on national security legislation even though it can be challenging particularly for many of the lawyers considering some of the concepts, rights and protections that might be curtailed because of putting national security first. Keeping Australians safe by ensuring that our national security legislation is as good as it can be is always a priority for the Labor Party. Our security agencies require that parliament give them the powers they need to do their job and to respond appropriately to threats as and when they occur.

This bill, like most of the previous national security bills, includes some measures which will have serious consequences for those who come within its powers. In particular, this bill extends the application of control orders to include minors as young as 14, and obviously that is a very serious step for the parliament to take, even in the pursuit of national security. Thankfully this bill was carefully examined by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The Labor members of that committee scrutinised the bill and heard evidence from security agencies and a range of experts and community groups. The PJCIS recommended 20 substantive changes to the bill. These recommendations included: mandating that a young person subject to a control order proceeding be provided with a lawyer—an important right; making clear in the legislation that the best interests of a young person are a primary consideration in any control order proceeding; mandatory reporting to parliament on the use of national security information in control order proceedings; a requirement that, for the offence of genocide, a person must be reckless as to whether another person might engage in genocide on the basis of their advocacy; and removing the requirement that, for the offence of genocide, the advocacy must take place publicly. Labor has worked hard on this committee to ensure that the recommendations have been included in the final bill.

Control orders, although a serious measure, are a necessary and valuable tool for our national security agencies. It is important to note that these orders have been used very sparingly since they were first introduced by the Howard government, in 2005. Obviously they are only reserved for the most serious cases. As of February this year, only six have been issued. They are only used in situations where measures such as interventions or deradicalisation programs would be unlikely to work. It is very sad that it has become necessary to extend the use of these serious control orders to include 14-year-olds. Sadly, that is the world we live in. Very young Australians are being targeted for radicalisation by organisations such as Daesh. The boy who murdered the New South Wales Police Force accountant Curtis Cheng in 2015 was just 15 years old, and another 15-year-old was charged in 2015 with conspiracy to conduct an act in preparation for a terrorist act. Fourteen is the age set in Australian federal law as being the age of criminal responsibility.

There were concerns raised with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about that aspect of this bill. Concerns were raised by the Human Rights Commission, the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNICEF Australia and other bodies. To address these concerns, the PJCIS recommended that, when imposing an interim control order on a person aged between 14 years and 17 years, the best interests of the child must be taken into account as a primary consideration—that is, other than the objects of the control order regime itself, they are the most important consideration. The object of the control order regime must be considered as a paramount consideration, the most important consideration, so that the purpose of the test is not skewed. The impact on the person's circumstances will obviously be an additional consideration.

The bill also includes a requirement that a person aged between 14 and 17 years in control order proceedings be provided with a lawyer if they do not already have one. Also, it is intended that control orders only be used in the most serious of situations. So far they have been used sparingly, with just six issued since 2005, as I said. It is important that, when such severe powers are given to authorities, there are some checks and balances put in place to ensure the powers are being used appropriately—and, as I said, hopefully never but, at the very least, sparingly. The Attorney-General is currently required to table an annual report detailing statistical information relating to the control orders made in each financial year. Importantly, this bill will mandate that the report must contain details specific to control orders made in relation to persons aged between 14 and 17 years.

This bill also contains a new offence of advocating genocide. This measure has been introduced to cover behaviour that did not meet the threshold of current offences. After the implementation of the PJCIS recommendations, this offence will apply where a person advocates genocide and that person does so recklessly as to whether another person will engage in genocide. The Australian Federal Police gave evidence to the committee that this additional offence is necessary to enable police to intervene earlier in the radicalisation process, to prevent and disrupt further engagement in genocide offences. This new offence will be subject to the existing defence for acts done in good faith, protecting the implied freedom of political communication.

The Australian Labor Party has approached this important legislation in a constructive and bipartisan manner. Labor is content that the measures, although very serious, are necessary to counter the potential national security threats. It is sad that it has become necessary to introduce this legislation, but that is the world we live in. Sadly, the necessity for the legislation reflects the worst of our society. But we must remember the best of our society too. We must not let those who seek to divide imprint on many the sins of a few. I am extremely lucky to have a constant reminder of the best of our community in my electorate of Moreton. The south side of Brisbane has a harmonious and inclusive multicultural community representing some of the best of Australia, and I am fortunate to witness this in action almost every weekend and at every school I visit.

I would particularly like to highlight some of the wonderful community organisations in Moreton and the wonderful work that they do. I particularly acknowledge the Islamic Council of Queensland, who this year hosted Eid Down Under, which aims to provide opportunities for intercultural collaboration and engagement across all of the community. It provides opportunities for community members and groups to come together and be part of the largest Muslim community event in Queensland. I have to mention Ghaliyah and her crew—the Islamic Women's Association of Queensland. I could spend a long time talking about their many events, including their annual iftar dinner during the month of Ramadan, and I think they recently celebrated their 25th anniversary. There is also the great work being done by the Muslim Charitable Foundation. This group is currently collecting handbags to give to homeless women at Christmas for the Share the Dignity charity. The bags are filled with personal items such as soap and hand cream to make these women feel special at Christmas. I will also mention Crescents of Brisbane and their many events, and particularly acknowledge their annual CresWalk, which I think takes place in the member for Griffith's electorate down on the river. It aims to create awareness of domestic violence and lots of other great causes.

I mention my Islamic community in particular because, whilst this legislation applies to all Australians, unfortunately, there are some who seek to target the Islamic community. I was searching on the internet for a quote that I think David Irvine, the former head of ASIO, made about the Islamic community, indicating that there would be no greater ally than the Islamic community. Whilst I thought I was looking at his speech, I was actually looking at a speech that the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, gave to the National Press Club. He has been quoted a bit lately for what he has said publicly, but this is a very good speech that he gave on 1 October 2014. I wanted to quote some particular lines from the Attorney-General. He said:

… The threat to Australia's domestic security … comes principally from a small number of people among us who try to justify criminal acts by perverting the meaning of Islam. Crime masquerading as religious dogmatism is still crime, and a fanatic who slaughters the innocent is a murderer, however much he might try to explain his crime in religious terms. People like that have nothing to do with the Islamic faith which they falsely invoke to justify their wicked deeds. As the Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, said on 15 September, their conduct is a betrayal of the Islamic faith:

'These criminals are committing crimes against humanity and sins against God.'

There could be no greater error than for Australians to demonise our Islamic fellow citizens—a community of some 500,000—because of the criminal elements who live among them and prey upon them … the leaders of that community are our partners and key allies in eradicating the problem of those who would lure their young men and women along a path to violence and, ultimately, self-destruction.

Fine words from the Attorney-General, and I commend him for that speech and for the efforts that he has made. We need to do this constantly, because there are those—unfortunately, including politicians and wannabe politicians—who are trying to cultivate fear and division in our Australian community. I do not want to name them, but I will call out their racism and I will call out their targeting of religious groups on every occasion. We have a Constitution that ensures we are not able to put religious requirements on Australians. I would hope that we always maintain that sound principle and that we are a harmonious community. Obviously, as I said at the start, I do not lightly consider the idea of control orders for children, but, with the appropriate checks and balances and upon the advice of our security agencies, I am prepared to support this legislation and commend it to the House.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016. The Minister for Justice was wondering how I felt about this bill, and I thought I might end the suspense for him while we wait for our next speaker to come into the chamber. I see that he is now here but, since I am speaking, I will make a couple of observations about this bill.

Firstly, it is preferable to avoid the detention of children wherever possible, and I certainly hope that the availability of control orders can be used as a means of avoiding detention of children—which, obviously, should be a last resort. I know that Australia takes its international law obligations in relation to the rights of children very seriously. I would like to see a slight extension of that. For example, I would like to see us ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. That is something that a number of people have been speaking about in this place for some time, and I would like that to happen. When we talk about control orders, I also think it is important to put on record—as the member for Moreton has just done—that we are a very successful multicultural society in Australia. We should be very proud of our very successful multicultural society and we should, in our bipartisan approaches to national security issues, make sure that we are continuously mindful of the success that we have had in bringing so many different cultures together. We are always stronger when we work together as a community and when we are cohesive, and I am very proud to be an Australian on that basis. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I thank the members who contributed to this debate: the member for Isaacs, the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Moreton and, very briefly, the member for Griffith. Clearly, we are living in extraordinary times in Australia when we need to bring legislation to this parliament that seeks to do some of the things that this bill will implement. The reason we are doing this—and it has been noted in this debate—is that the security situation in Australia has deteriorated very significantly as a result of events in Syria and Iraq. The Australian government recognised this very early on and we took proactive action—in fact, we have responded better than anywhere in the world—to make sure that our agencies, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ASIO and other agencies involved with a national security, had what they needed to deal with this threat.

The terror threat in Australia 10 years ago was vastly different from what it is today. At that stage we were dealing with people who had returned from the Afghanistan conflict, who had been radicalised, who were much smaller in number but who had a network and an intent to do Australia harm. They planned large, spectacular plots—attacking a military base, attacking large sporting events—and, of course, that involved an enormous amount of planning. You needed to source materials, you needed to talk to a network of people and you needed to coordinate. Clearly, that gave our agencies an opportunity to understand and take action on those plots. What we have now is a situation where somebody—often a young person, often a young man—could be radicalising late at night online. They could be doing it in the basement of their parents' home without their parents even knowing. It is a vastly different security arrangement that we need in Australia to be able to deal with that. We have worked with our operational agencies, who have been providing us with advice about what we need to do to change the laws to address this radically altered environment. We have methodically worked through—and I appreciate that we have done this with the assistance of the opposition—what they need to keep us safe and we have provided them with the powers that they require.

This bill is the latest iteration of that ongoing conversation that we have with our security agencies. It does do things, as has been noted by other speakers, that are relatively difficult, particularly control orders for people as young as 14. But, sadly, events in Australia have shown us that these powers are required. I will not go into the details of the bill again, considering I made an introductory speech about it only about 45 minutes ago, but I do remind the House and the Australian people that these measures are necessary. As some of the speakers noted in the debate, I too hope that they are never used, but if our agencies need them, if the circumstances call for it, if our national security demands it and action is needed to keep us safe, then we do need to make sure that they have the tools at their disposal to do that. I, therefore, commend this bill to the House and I thank the House for the indication that it will be supported.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative, in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Bill read a second time.