George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. The Australian government has a duty to the people of Australia to keep the community safe. I note that at the heart of this bill is the desire to keep the community safe from foreign threats, to keep our community safe from those who have gone overseas and fought in foreign wars and perhaps been radicalised while in the hands of Islamists and who come back to our nation here and perhaps try to do harm to those in this country. It's very, very important that we are well aware of the danger that radical Islamism poses to our country. There is not really much to be said about the substance of this bill apart from it extending the sunset clause by another year. There obviously has to be more review done on the powers that have been given to police in this regard, and that extra year will allow for that review to be done.

But one of the foreign wars that we had Australians go over to fight was to train with the Taliban, perhaps to train with terrorist groups, and obviously that resulted in the attacks that we saw on 11 September 2001. I remember it vividly. It is something that is now scarred into the memory of people in the West: the sight of planes flying into the World Trade Center, and the World Trade Center tumbling to the ground and taking with it thousands of people who were working in it; the sight of the Pentagon, with that massive scar in the building from where a jet plane flew into it; and to think, as the Leader of the Nationals spoke so eloquently about earlier in question times, of those brave men and women who took it upon themselves to end the terror flight that they had suddenly found themselves on, and they ended it in the most devastating way, crashing into farming fields instead of crashing into perhaps the Capitol building or perhaps the White House. We'll never, ever know what the true destination of that flight was.

That resulted in the Afghanistan war, which I know some people in this chamber have served in. I don't want to do a big, long rollcall, because I'll miss out some names. But I make particular mention of the member for Herbert, my good friend, who was a veteran of that war and has certainly opened up my eyes to some of the issues that veterans still suffer from following that conflict. And with that conflict coming to an end and the disastrous way in which it was ended, and what has resulted—the collapse of that country, being handed back to the Taliban—I'm certainly not one who is against ending the presence of our troops and US troops in Afghanistan. I've got to say, at the time I was probably someone who supported our going in there. In retrospect, as many of us can say, it probably was not a good thing; it probably could have been achieved quite differently with other actions. And I am certainly no longer a proponent of the 'forever wars' that the military-industrial complex out of the United States seems to forever want to be engaging in.

So, it was good that it came to an end, but the way in which it was ended has led to this outright human misery, and we're going to see long-lasting ramifications from that indeed. We need to ensure that the people who assisted us, who were our allies during that conflict, find a safe haven, whether here in our country or elsewhere. I know that's been done. A lot of criticism has been thrown. Maybe some of it's justified. Perhaps some of it's not, because we're not all privy to what the Department of Defence and the Army and the people on the ground were actually doing there. But I know that well before this popped up in the media I had received, through contacts of mine, concern and requests that I put direct to the defence minister. I let him know about that, and he advised me at that time—we're talking about right back to the beginning of June—that work was underway to try to assist those people. Perhaps it didn't come quickly enough, but that is probably because no-one, not even the President of the United States or, it seems, the Joint Chiefs of the United States Defence Force, realised how quickly Afghanistan would fall—but they should have; they really should have. Withdrawing everything and seeing your equipment, your vehicles and perhaps even your weapons just handed over to the enemy that you've been fighting against and them retaking control of the country—it has just been disgraceful. But I do echo the words of others in this place earlier to all of those men and women who stepped up in uniform to go over to that country and fight in the name of this nation: it was not in vain. We say thank you to them, because they held back further terror attacks from occurring out of that nation. They did do that. And that is an achievement, because, if that didn't happen, we simply don't know what other terror attacks may have happened or what deaths may have occurred.

The whole Afghanistan issue is quite a vexed one, and that is going to play out into the future. What we don't want to see is any encouragement of more people who might be radicalised to the belief system of Islamism, which is very different to the religion of Islam, I might mention. Islam, as we hear many times, is a religion of peace. Islamism is a violent ideology that splits the world into the house of peace—those who have submitted or subjugated to Islam—and the house of war, which is waged against those who are yet to submit. That is a very, very violent and extremist ideology that needs to be confronted and needs to be countered. One way of countering it is actually stopping people from leaving our shores to go over and fight for renegade nations like Afghanistan and the Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah—a whole heap of different groups that cropped up waging this war in the name of the ideology of Islamism. I know that this bill, as I said at the start, deals with these people returning here and the risk that they pose to people, but having laws in place which deal very swiftly and very justly with those people will be a deterrent in itself. That's why this is to be commended.

Can I just speak a little bit more globally on another issue that's linked to this, and it is with regard to increased power for police around detention and search and seizure. I urge caution to the government. Whenever we give authorities more power against citizens, there is a chance that that power can be misused. That's why I hope that, over the next year, as this sunset clause is extended, we look very, very carefully at the powers that we've bestowed upon our police force. I trust them. The Australian Federal Police are a brilliant outfit. But wherever you give some extra element to an authority to go checking into the lives of people who may have done absolutely nothing wrong you open it up for abuse, so I think that there needs to be a long, hard look. I have no issue when control orders or search-and-seizure orders are done as they would normally be done in the criminal justice system, which is with an order from a court. A judge's order has at least been looked at by someone, a man or a woman, who is steeped in the law, understands what people's legal rights are, is able to look at the evidence that's being presented to them and is able to give a professional and experienced view with all of that jurisprudence behind them. When we simply move to a situation where we're not having that check and balance in the system, I do get gravely concerned. That needs to happen. That's not a commentary specifically on this bill; that's just a philosophy that I have around people's privacy and people's rights.

Going back to the specifics of the bill, I know that the intention is to keep Australians safe from those who have been radicalised—not just radicalised but almost weaponised, you could say—by going off into foreign nations and fighting wars for extremist, violent, radical Islamist organisations and outfits. That is what this bill seeks to pull up, and, hopefully, it will pull it up. We have seen some high-profile arrests of people who have returned. We've seen a lack of this activity in our country, and that's probably also due to the fact that, under former President Trump, ISIS was smashed. We've only just seen the resurgence of the Taliban now. I'm not sure whether or not that's going to lead to radicalised Islamist Australians going overseas, or attempting to go overseas when they can, to fight for such causes as the Taliban, but this bill, once again, becomes the deterrent. If you go over there, you may as well stay over there, because when you come back you're going to be going behind bars, and it's going to be a very, very rough time indeed for you. You have committed a criminal act, and the book is going to be thrown at you.

You can't just saunter over to another country and wage war in the name of such a violent, extremist, radical ideology as Islamism and expect that you can come back here to this country and have all the rights and freedoms that you otherwise would enjoy. What you'll be coming back to is, firstly, a police interview room, then a courtroom and then a cell, and it's going to be a very, very long stay for you indeed if you do that, because, as I said at the start of this debate, the only other option is to let these people roam free in our community, radicalised and potentially weaponised as well, knowing the arts of war after being engaged in those conflicts. And the question is: what sort of actions could those people take against Australian citizens, given that their belief would be that we currently sit in what Islamists would describe as the 'house of war'? We've seen potential incidents like that around this country. We've seen the Lindt cafe siege. We saw the attempt on the plane that was foiled because authorities got hold of information. Thankfully, we have been spared any significant incident in this country and the loss of life that could come from terrorism that is acted out by one of these foreign fighters.

With those words, I do commend the bill but with reservations around people's privacy and people's rights, and I hope that the government takes that in the manner I have given it. I thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, for allowing me to speak.

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

[by video link] It goes without saying, with respect to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021, that the Labor Party supports this bill. I also support the second reading amendment that was moved by my friend the member for Scullin with respect to the declared area provisions, but I will come back to that a bit later on in this discussion. As I said, we support the bill.

The bill deals with a range of counterterrorism and other police powers in the Crimes Act 1914 and the Criminal Code Act 1995 which are due to expire on 7 September 2021. These four powers are the declared area provisions, the control order regime, the preventative detention regime, and a range of stop, search and seizure powers. This bill would extend the sunset date on each of these powers which was, as I've said, 7 September 2021. As well as extending a number of the sunset dates, the bill would also allow the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to conduct a review of the operation, the effectiveness and the proportionality of the declared areas provisions prior to the new sunset date. Finally, the bill would amend the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to give the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor more time to finalise his review of the continuing order regime.

I note the contribution from the previous speaker, the member for Dawson. In terms of his broad support for the legislation that's been put before him and that he was debating and making a contribution on, he raised some issues about privacy concerns; I noted that. I've been someone who has had his parliamentary career defined by what happened on 11 September 2001. I think it was the defence minister who said everyone in Australia knew where they were at the time that those twin towers fell, at the time when those planes hit the twin towers. I can recall that moment nearly 20 years ago vividly, as vividly as though I'm watching it now. Having come into this chamber in 1999, my parliamentary career really has been dominated in many ways by our response to the terror attack by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden on 11 September 2001. Of the nearly 22 years I have been in parliament, I would say about 19 of those years have been spent working in the counterterrorism space and the intelligence and security space, working with wonderful professionals who do their utmost day and night to keep Australia safe.

The member for Dawson made some comments about what we are being protected from. I think one of the points to make to people listening who might not understand this legislation, the normal person out in the suburbs or someone who has just come in to try and understand this legislation, is: each of these bits of legislation—declared areas, control orders, the preventative detention regime and the stop, search and seizure powers—have been given to the government, to our security agencies and to the police to keep Australians safe, in response primarily to the threat of terrorism. It is a threat that we have experienced with the Bali bombings.

But I also want to make this point with respect to these powers and many other powers that the agencies have been granted: in my experience—and there have been a lot of new powers that have been granted to the agencies, to the security services and to the police force, particularly the AFP—those powers have been used in a judicious and measured way. Keeping in mind the safeguards that have been invariably built into these legislative measures, some of these powers are extraordinary powers—the preventative detention regime and the stop, search and seizure powers. They are not powers that were created without thought for the consequences; they were powers generated out of the necessity of the time, the necessity to respond to the terrorist threat, the necessity to do what it took within the law to keep Australians safe. And these laws for the most part have in fact done that, as have other laws that have been granted to the intelligence agencies and the security services.

I have a bit to do with the Joint Counter Terrorism Team here in Melbourne, and I have a lot to do with the AFP. What I've seen recently should give many people listening to this great heart about the great work that ASIO does, that the AFP does and that their local police do—in particular the Victorian police—to keep us safe. When you hear what the perpetrators of some of the attacks that you have read about in the broad are attempting to do, it chills the blood; it really does chill you to the marrow, what they are intending to do.

I can only relate, and I very vividly relate to, a specific instance, and I will need to take this opportunity because I don't know if parliament will sit again following this week. But coming up in the next week or two, on 23 September, is the seventh anniversary of the Endeavour Hills terrorist attack by a young man who'd been radicalised by ISIL and then sought to kill two police officers, officer A and officer B, who, I am proud to say, have been my friends now for many years subsequent to that event. I came into contact with them shortly after that attack, where the perpetrator, the young terrorist, was killed. Both of these men wear the scars of that attack. Both of these men will be wearing the scars of that attack for the rest of their lives—not just the physical scars, and they are very unpleasant to look at, but the psychological scars. The officers concerned, when they went and spoke to that young man, did not seek to harm him; they were seeking to keep him out of harm's way. Little did they know, on that very dark evening on 23 September, that that young man was beyond saving—beyond guiding out of harm's way. In effect, what had happened to that young man was that he had been so radicalised that he was there with one thing on his mind: that was to kill the police officers, and, if he were successful in killing those police officers, then to mount a further attack, I believe, on Endeavour Hills Police Station. But that attack was thwarted by the bravery of those two police officers. I made a promise to them: that every year, if I had the opportunity, I would mention these two and bring their bravery to the attention of this place. They responded to one of the first attacks put forward when ISIL issued its fatwa in about the middle part of 2014. They bore the brunt of what happened—of what actually can happen when you have a terrorist attack. So again, to those two, I want to specifically take this opportunity to say that there's not a day that I don't remember what you've done and the sacrifice you've made. Many members of the community can't know who you are and what you're experiencing and what you're suffering. But there are many of your friends who do know—friends from the police community, the AFP community and the intelligence community, and your many friends who again would offer you thanks for the great work that you have done in keeping Australians safe. We all want the best for both of you in continuing to heal from that very traumatic event.

I just want to touch more on the particular powers that are contained within this piece of legislation, which Labor supports. One of the things that concerns me, though, is that the control orders, the preventative detention and the stop, search and seizure powers were all due to expire on 7 September 2021, and they're currently under review by our particular committee. Now, it's a significant concern to me and to other Labor members that the Morrison government have left it until the last minute to extend the sunset dates on these powers. What if it hadn't been possible, for whatever reason, for parliament to sit this week, before 7 September, due to the outbreak of COVID in Canberra or other parts of Australia? We know it was a narrowly run thing and this parliament may not have been able to sit. What would've happened is that all of these existing control orders would have lapsed, and that would have left us much less safe. With counterterrorism, with these sorts of regulations, you just can't do 'just in time'; it's just not satisfactory. We could have actually avoided this risk—and it was a safety risk—had the government been paying attention and addressed this sunset clause issue faster. But we are supportive, and this will allow the government to extend those sunset dates to 7 December 2022. This extension will ensure that the intelligence and security committee will have sufficient time to complete the review, prior to the powers sunsetting, and the government will have sufficient time to work through and respond to any recommendations made by the committee.

There's another area, called the declared area provisions. The control order, preventative detention and stop and seizure powers, which were due to expire, as I've said, on 7 September 2021, are, as I said, under review. I want to describe the declared area provisions of the Criminal Code briefly. They allow the Minister for Foreign Affairs to declare an area in a foreign country, if he or she is satisfied that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in a hostile activity in that area of a foreign country, and make it an offence for a person to enter or remain in a declared area. That is subject to a number of limited exceptions set out in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, such as providing aid of a humanitarian nature, performing an official duty for the Commonwealth or visiting a family member.

In February this year, the intelligence and security committee recommended that the sunset date for these powers be extended to 7 September 2024 and that the committee be empowered to conduct a review of these powers at any time prior to that date. This bill implements both of these recommendations. The intelligence and security committee, however, also recommended that the declared area provisions be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to a declared area for a reason not listed in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code. The former national security legislation monitor Dr James Renwick made a similar recommendation in 2017. The government has rejected this recommendation on the bases that it could not be effectively implemented and monitored and that the time and resources required to obtain information to assess an application would be significant and would divert security and intelligence resources from other national security priorities. We are not persuaded by this argument, and we think that the government should implement the committee's bipartisan and unanimous recommendation. We recognise that the implementation of this recommendation is complex, but we are calling on the government to work with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our security agencies to implement the committee's bipartisan and unanimous recommendation.

As I've said, with everything that we're seeing—the terrors unfolding in Afghanistan, the terrible scenes that we've seen at the airport and the terrible reports that I'm receiving from our wonderful Afghan community here in Melbourne—I'd like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the Afghan community that have made this country their home and who have had a pivotal role to play in the creation of Australia. Afghan cameleers were essential to the development of Australia when they came to this country in the 1800s. Without them, we may not have had the bush telegraph. There are many things that we wouldn't have had, had our Afghan friends not been here. I believe that we owe it to them, in discussing this particular matter in Afghanistan, to provide the support we can to get as many as possible of the people that assisted us in our efforts to keep Afghanistan safe out of harm's way and to bring those that are appropriate and are security cleared to our country. I take this opportunity to speak on behalf of my friends in the Afghan community who are working with the government to assist, in terms of identifying appropriate people that can come to the country, to allow that to happen. We need to be there for them just as they were for us.

We can see what happens. I saw what happened when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan last. Women were sent back into the Stone Age. The great freedoms that have been enjoyed have created a different environment for women that, I believe, is going to be taken away, notwithstanding the rhetoric from the Taliban mark 2. The challenge that was made and particularly enunciated by our Leader of the Opposition is: we'll be watching you and making sure that you abide by the words that you've been saying to the international community.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party, Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2021. Protecting the Australian community from the evolving threat of terrorism is and will continue to be among the government's highest priorities.

This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. The declared areas offence is an important part of the Australian government's efforts to stop the flow of foreign fighters to overseas conflict zones and to mitigate the risk that returning foreign fighters pose to Australians. Control orders and preventative detention orders are important tools used to prevent terrorist acts and manage the risk posed by persons who continue to present a risk to the community. The emergency stop, search and seizure powers ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The extension of the reporting date for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, to review division 105A of the Criminal Code will enable the INSLM to engage in interstate consultations which were disrupted by COVID-19 travel restrictions and provide a greater body to draw upon in this review of the practical operation of the provisions.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is currently conducting a statutory review of control orders, preventive detention orders and the stop, search and seizure powers. This bill ensures these powers do not cease while this important review is ongoing.

The committee's separate review of the declared areas provisions was tabled on 20 February 2021. This bill implements key recommendations made by the committee in this review, including that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to provide that the PJCIS may review the operation, effectiveness and proportionality of the declared areas provisions by 7 January 2024, ahead of the new sunsetting date of 7 September 2024.

I thank my colleagues across the chamber for their consideration of these important measures. This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to protecting the Australian community from the threat of terrorism and ensuring our law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security threat environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.