Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill provides a 12-month extension to AFP counterterrorism powers that are currently scheduled to sunset on the seventh of December this year, which is not very far away when I think that, when I visited the shops over the course of the weekend, I noticed Christmas decorations were already out. Perhaps there should be some legislation in this place to outlaw that practice this early in the year! But the powers that will sunset on 7 December concern, particularly, stop, search and seizure powers, control orders, and preventative detention orders. As the provisions of this bill provide merely an extension of the current AFP powers, there is no financial impact anticipated.

The parliament previously granted these special AFP powers for a very sober reason—that being the existence of a probable terrorist threat to Australia and Australians. This threat has not abated. While the attention of the Australian public has been somewhat distracted by the recent COVID pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine, I think that it's very timely that the parliament consider the extension of these provisions and recognise the fact that the terrorist threat is still out there. It hasn't gone away, even though perhaps the attention of the media and the Australian public has quite rightly gone on to other, newer threats. That threat remains—to this day—probable, and I'm sure every member of this House believes strongly in safeguarding all basic human rights and freedoms enshrined in law, without exception.

While I'm new to this chamber, I also believe with some confidence that all members in this place also hold as their highest priority the obligation to keep Australians safe, especially from those who wish to do us harm, both from abroad and from within. It is to this end that the coalition acknowledges the vital importance of maintaining the security architecture that it previously put in place to meet the threat of terrorism on home soil. For this reason, the opposition is going to be supporting this bill.

The coalition recognises that terrorism presented and still presents an enduring challenge for our social cohesion and personal safety. Australian police and security agencies have a really strong record of successfully defending Australians against such threats, but our success against terrorist threats is highly dependent on having quick, effective and reliable access to the right tools. We should not remove these public safety tools from the hands of Australian Federal Police, who have been incredibly responsible in dealing with these powers and utilising them sparingly. When threats do emerge, we want to make sure that our AFP have these powers at their disposal if needed.

In 2014 the Abbott government, following the best security advice, raised the threat level to 'high' on the scale then, or 'probable' in today's scale. Australia's national terrorism threat has been maintained at 'probable' ever since, despite all the changes that we have endured over recent years. This fact—together with the shocking incidents of the intervening years, and many successfully averted terrorist threats—highlights the importance of eternal vigilance and the ability to respond with the appropriate tools. The stubborn persistence of the 'probable' threat, together with some appalling incidents which played out on city streets—and others that were prevented just in time from impacting on the Australian community—led the coalition to decisively enact the current AFP emergency powers regime.

I think it is important to acknowledge the great work that the Australian Federal Police have done over recent decades to defend the Australian community from the threat of terrorism. In Australia we do an amazing job of recognising the service and the sacrifice of our defence personnel. It's probably an area where we can improve a bit more, to recognise the work of police, both at the state and territory level and our Federal Police and, particularly, the amazing job that they've done in handling threats that don't enter the consciousness of many Australians, but the AFP are quietly doing their work in this city, and others around Australia, to keep us all safe. I acknowledge that on Thursday we're going to be commemorating the Australian Police Remembrance Day. We've lost 11 AFP and Commonwealth Police and Peace Officers over the course of the history of Australian federal policing. I think it's important that we take a day out to recognise that and acknowledge the amazing work that they've done under incredibly trying circumstances.

In September 2014, the same month Prime Minister Abbott raised the threat level, Australian police carried out the largest counterterrorism operation in our nation's history, sending 800 armed officers into households across Sydney and across my hometown of Brisbane, to detain Australian citizens who had recently returned from fighting alongside IS militants in the Middle East. One of the men arrested was Omarjan Azari, who was later charged with conspiracy to commit demonstration killings. It was AFP emergency powers—mainly the control order regime, one of the three elements of this bill—implemented by the former coalition government that ensured that Azari could not communicate with certain people and that helped secure his conviction.

This is but one of the several examples where AFP special powers were directly, but sparingly, used to protect the Australian public in real time against real terrorist threats, and I think that is an important point. We haven't got time to race back into the parliament to legislate when these threats emerge. We need to make sure that the AFP have these powers on hand and that they have the ability to use them, if needed, in the future. With the threat level still at 'probable', who knows when that time will come? It's important for the government to introduce this bill and get this bill passed so we can ensure the AFP have these powers beyond the 7 December sunset date.

While the coalition supports the essence of the bill—namely, extending the sunset date to give the government more time to consider recommendations, consult accordingly and draft legislation—we also acknowledge some related concerns. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report on AFP powers which was released in October last year made a total of 19 recommendations, including amendments and additional safeguards which, if accepted, will mean greater operational complexity for law enforcement. While the appropriateness of certain PJCIS recommendations may not be a direct criticism of this bill, it is nevertheless possible to argue that a greater compliance burden may impact the efficacy of established AFP powers that have seen only rare use in the years since their introduction. While this bill gives effect to a sunset provision, to be extended by one year, it is important that the issues raised in the PJCIS report be dealt with promptly and that these emergency powers be given appropriate certainty under law for a realistic period of not less than three years. The coalition supports this bill and urges the Labor government to review and, where feasible, implement the PJCIS recommendations as a matter of urgency.

The coalition recognises the importance of our counterterrorism measures in 2022 and agrees that the bill provides for the continuation of key powers that keep Australians safe. The coalition acknowledges the unanimous PJCIS support for the extension of AFP powers—including stop, search and seizure powers; control order powers; and preventative detention order powers—for a further three years from the sunset date. The coalition believes that an extra year will allow the government to review the PJCIS report and recommendations, consult widely and draft relevant legislation to extend this further. The coalition members and senators will certainly monitor the Labor government's actions closely to ensure that they keep their promise to consult widely with the community and other stakeholders, as well as state and territory governments—something they have been historically quite poor at doing. We trust that, despite Labor's propensity to leverage state power in the lives of individuals, these special powers will remain special, targeted and infrequent in their use.

Collectively, under the coalition, these powers were only ever used sparingly. Only 23 control orders were issued over the past eight years. No preventative detention orders have ever been made, nor have there been any incidents that required emergency stop, search and seizure powers. The AFP have done an incredible job in ensuring that these powers were exercised sparingly and appropriately. We need to be careful when it comes to balancing these powers, and the coalition accepts that it may take a little more time to get the balance right in any new legislation. Therein lies the obligation. This Labor government must do just that and ensure the same level of balance that the coalition achieved in such a critical area of government responsibility. If Labor turns the dial down too far, then the life and property of Australians may be at risk, but, if they turn the dial too far the other way, then individual freedoms may be impacted.

The coalition recognise that, while the media focus of recent years has been on other issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the threat of terrorism has certainly not gone away. As I've mentioned, it's certainly departing the consciousness of the public very quickly. I do note that it doesn't seem to appear in discussion around election debates anymore. This isn't an issue that gathers the news headlines that it did 10 or even 20 years ago. But, while the media attention has gone away, our terror threat level remains at that very high 'probable' rating. While we continue to face a probable threat, the existing AFP powers, which have proven to be very effective—short and medium term powers to investigate, prevent and contain that threat—should be continued through this bill. The coalition believes the minimal use of these powers over the past eight years demonstrates that, provided an appropriate balance is maintained, they will not be misused.

I call on the Labor government to use wisely the extra time afforded by this bill. They should consult wisely. They should read those recommendations by the committee very closely and do it early in this extra year that's been given—use the opportunity. Why not have some legislation early in the new year to extend these provisions even further, rather than kicking it down the road another 12 months? Because this threat certainly isn't going away. The 'probable' threat level has been there for years, and there's no saying how long that threat is going to be hanging over us.

This government must ensure that an effective and transparent suite of special AFP powers are maintained to keep Australians safe and to safeguard human rights and freedoms above all. I trust that the government will take that appropriate action. Certainly, I know the coalition members will be keen to hold the government to account to ensure that we do get a very good outcome here in the new year and that these measures are appropriately implemented not just over the next 12 months but over the long term. I commend the bill to the House.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. It has been made clear that it is essentially about extending certain powers that have been provided now for a few years to the Australian Federal Police. They are due to expire this December, and this bill extends that expiration for another 12 months and allows time for the recommendations that the PJCIS has given to government to be implemented as well as some further consultation with other law enforcement agencies in the various state jurisdictions. Whilst I'm very happy to support this extension in this case, these powers are quite significant and ones that we should always hesitate around fully convincing ourselves of their necessity. I certainly am convinced of the necessity of these powers being extended. Nonetheless, it is a very important part of the social compact in this country between our law enforcement agencies and the powers they have, and any new powers or capabilities that are given to them, that we equally are doing that in an environment where there is a deep amount of community trust that those powers will be used appropriately and with great discretion and that they are indeed absolutely necessary to keep us safe.

We, as parliamentarians in a democracy, need to absolutely ensure that we are always being mindful and wary of giving the capability to law enforcement that could run the risk of removing people's liberties or putting them in a position that's not fair in our society without extremely good reason. The overview of the three powers, when exercised, are the sorts of powers that do impugn the liberty of the citizens of this country. We need to set a very high standard for the need for that. The stop, search and seizure power is obviously not something an Australian would expect in a normal situation without a strong case of probable cause. Equally, control orders and preventative detention orders are also powers that seem, on the face of them, to be quite significant, perhaps even extreme, and they would be in circumstances not related to terrorism and the threat of terrorism. At the risk of terrorism and terrorist acts, I absolutely support the requirement for us to equip the Australian Federal Police with the appropriate capability beyond what they can do in other circumstances so that they can undertake their law enforcement obligations in this country and have some enhanced powers to put them in a position to best protect us from the threat of terrorism.

On 12 October, in two weeks time, is the 20th anniversary of the Bali bombings. Unfortunately, this parliament won't be sitting on that date, so I take this opportunity to remember the Australians that were killed and injured in those terrorist attacks in Bali 20 years ago. A little over a year ago, we commemorated the 20th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, where many Australians and thousands of Americans were killed.

The counterterrorism framework in this country really has been completely overhauled, enhanced and re-engineered since that epochal moment on 11 September 2001, when all of us lost some of our comfort about the world that we live in and some of our reassurance. We lost a sense that things could happen only in some parts of the world and not just anywhere in the world. When two planes flew into two buildings in Lower Manhattan, I certainly remember feeling, as part of many emotions at the time, that there is nothing different between New York City and Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or anywhere in this country, Australia. Really, as a planet, we all responded very significantly to a world that was going to be changed forever because of those events.

Unfortunately, Australians died not just in September 11 but, of course, in other terrorist attacks that have occurred since then. I mentioned the Bali bombings, and at times there have been others around the world, of course, that have claimed the lives of Australians. Australians were killed in the London Bridge attacks. I was in London at the time. Frankly, it was just a terrible experience, being so close—adjacent—to a terrorist attack that occurred at that point.

So it is a very serious risk, and unfortunately it is ever present with us. Frankly, it would be unforgivable for us as a parliament to ever think: 'Oh, look, it's been a while now since anything of a serious magnitude happened. Nothing too serious has happened in this country since the Lindt Cafe siege.' Unfortunately, we can never, ever decide that we'll ever be truly safe again and that we can ever stand down from that posture. We pay such tribute to the people on the front line of keeping us safe against the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, they are going to have to be at that heightened sense of alert, really, in perpetuity. I just don't see a time where we'll ever be able to say the threat of some form of terrorist attack in our society is no longer something that we see as being likely or possible.

In that context, this extension is appropriate. The previous speaker made this point, and I'm sure other speakers on this bill will also make the point. I think that it is pleasing to see how infrequently—in some cases not at all—these powers that the AFP have been given have ever had to be used. That is quite reassuring to me from two points of view. The first is that it is a relief that there aren't risks that the AFP are identifying on a regular basis that mean they have to use these powers. I think that's a good thing. I'd love for them to never have to use these powers, despite the importance of them having access to the powers. It also gives me comfort that they are not abusing these powers or looking at these powers as opportunities to reach beyond their reasonable remit in doing what they do to keep us safe from the threat of terrorism.

Like other speakers, I am anxious that the government complete this fairly rapidly. This 12-month extension, hopefully is the only extension that they need. I really pay tribute to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the work that they do. We can see with legislation like this how vital it is that we have a real bipartisanship on these issues. I know my good friend the member for Fisher now serves on that committee, and I'm sure that there will be a contribution from him about the importance of the work there and also how we can put our trust and faith in some of our members. It can't be all of us, obviously. It's got to be some of our members who can be on a committee like that, where they get access to important information that is necessary for them to have confidence that legislation that will come to the parliament is necessary. We can't ask certain questions, particularly in the public domain, of the executive government when they come and seek certain powers about which we might think, 'Well, we'd love some justification for this.' We equally can't ask that in the public domain in a public setting, and it is vital that there is proper structure that is linked to the parliament that not only is able to be brought into sometimes extremely confidential information, which absolutely must be protected and kept confidential from a national security point of view, but also gives them a confidence as to why our agencies and our government are asking for certain powers to be provided to them. That mechanism does give me great comfort. When we're asked to vote on this type of legislation, where there is a lot of information that probably does support the need for legislative change or legislative enactment, but at the same time can't be provided to every member of parliament, we have the mechanism of PJCIS. That means an appropriate number of our colleagues can be given proper briefings on the basis of the extremely necessary confidentiality and protection of that information, so that they can say to colleagues like myself, who are not serving on that committee, that they have felt justified in the need for these powers.

These powers were enacted under the former government, and we've now got a new government and a new executive that are saying, 'Yes, indeed, these powers need to be extended.' We've sensibly had these sunset clauses on these powers so that they are coming back to the parliament on a regular basis, and I believe the intention is to put a more permanent arrangement in place, flowing out of a process in PJCIS and the work they've done to put something more permanent in place and with the appropriate consultation with state law enforcement authorities and the like. On that basis, I am very much comfortable in supporting something which I have a natural trepidation towards but which does need to meet a very high standard of justification. These are significant powers that we would ordinarily be quite nervous about providing to any government agency, but I do believe that when it comes to counterterrorism and equipping the agency with the necessary powers that they need to do their job, as long as members of parliament have been given a strong justification through an appropriate way, which I've just outlined, I think that we should be backing and supporting the Australian Federal Police and equipping them with the necessary powers they need to keep us safe from terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Sturt on a well-researched and well-delivered speech on a very important topic. I rise in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. There is an often-quoted phrase that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. That phrase is often ascribed to Thomas Jefferson, but the first person that is purported to have said it was an Irishman, John Philpot Curran, who back in 1790 said, 'The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance'. That pretty much sums up the importance of this bill.

The big provides for the continuation of counterterrorism powers held by the AFP which are due to sunset on 7 December of this year. This bill seeks to extend those powers until December 2023. These are powers which the previous coalition government implemented in 2021 as part of our extensive work to strengthen Australia's national security. By extending the sunsetting date by 12 months, the government and the opposition can reach a bipartisan position on new legislation to amend part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 based on the recommendations of the PJCIS, on which I am very proud to serve as the deputy chair.

The previous member speaking, the member for Sturt, spoke at some length about the importance of the PJCIS. I want to take this opportunity to commend the outstanding work that has been done by the most recent chair of the committee, Senator James Paterson. I've only been on the committee for a short while, but his depth of knowledge in relation to intelligence and security is really quite remarkable. I also want to acknowledge the work of the now shadow minister for defence, the member for Canning, who preceded Senator Paterson as chair of the committee. Both these gentlemen have done outstanding work in the PJCIS.

The PJCIS is perhaps the most important committee in this place. It provides much-needed oversight over our intelligence agencies. We live in a parliamentary democracy which is constantly under threat, but it is very important that, if our security agencies have these very significant powers, we have appropriate checks and balances on our security agencies. The PJCIS, along with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, performs the role of providing checks and balances for our intelligence and security architecture in this country.

We should never fall victim to any form of hubris when it comes to terrorism or national security. This country, sadly, is constantly at threat of terrorist attacks by those who would seek to do us harm, whether they are state based actors or lone-wolf actors. It is very important that our security agencies have the sorts of powers which I'll go through shortly, but it is equally important that we have appropriate checks and balances on those agencies to ensure that they conduct themselves appropriately within the confines of the law and that any potential overreach is dealt with.

Yesterday we acknowledged Police Week and National Police Remembrance Day. We have a great responsibility in this place—and, I believe, in our broader community—to recognise the importance of the work that is done by our policing services both at a state and territory level and, importantly, at a federal level. Australia's national terrorism threat level today remains at 'probable'. There is credible intelligence, assessed by Australia's security agencies, indicating that malicious actors have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers reserved for the AFP, to keep Australians safe. All powers will continue to be subject to robust safeguards and oversight, as I said earlier, with the PJCIS and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security overseeing those agencies.

The bill extends the sunset clause by 12 months in relation to three key powers. They are control orders, preventative detention orders and emergency stop and seizure powers. In relation to the control orders, these provisions allow the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to impose an order which places tailored obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on an individual who continues to present a risk to the community. A preventative detention order allows a person to be detained without charge and can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects that an attack could occur within 14 days, or, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, to preserve vital evidence. In relation to the emergency stop, search and seizure powers, these provisions allow police to request a person's name, address and other details; they allow police to conduct a search for a terrorism related item and to seize such an item; and they allow police to enter premises without a warrant, to prevent a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.

Some would argue that these provisions, these orders, are draconian in nature, that they take away people's liberty—and that is correct; they do. But this is the serious nature of the threat that this country faces and, in fact, that many Western countries face. These are provisions that we would rather not have, but, in order to keep Australians safe, this parliament and previous parliaments have considered them to be vital, with appropriate checks and balances.

To date, no preventative detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Although these powers have not been used to date, this actually demonstrates that the AFP are very judicious in their application of these far-reaching and broad powers. I would suggest to this chamber that Australians can and in fact should be very proud of the members of the ADF—I'm sorry, of the AFP. They should also be proud of the ADF, of course. But, confining my remarks to the AFP, for 43 of the last 75 years the AFP have contributed to global peacekeeping efforts and supporting Australia's role in maintaining law and order at home and abroad.

Thanks to the previous coalition government's record investment in the work of the AFP and our nation's law enforcement and security agencies, Australia has led groundbreaking operations and international partnerships to make our country, our region and our world safer. Consider Operation Ironside. This was a sophisticated sting, with the FBI, that targeted the criminal underworld and saw more than 350 local arrests, 6.3 tonnes of drugs seized and six drug labs shut down. Consider Operation Veyda, which took down two global narcotics crime syndicates spanning five countries. Consider Operation Appleby, the largest counterterrorism probe in Australia, which took down a Sydney terrorist cell. And consider the vital work of the Australian Centre to Combat Child Exploitation, which I had the privilege of visiting just a couple of weeks ago. The AFP, through the ACCCE, is leading the world in employing new technology and tactics to protect our children, and that has resulted in over 2,700 charges being laid against predators and consumers of child abuse material.

Just in the last few days, we learnt about the cyberattack on Optus. The Australian Signals Directorate and the AFP are working closely with Optus to try and identify the culprits, under Operation Hurricane. Together with overseas law enforcement agencies, they are investigating this hack, this threat, that has exposed the private information of almost 10 million Australians. So the AFP are at the cutting edge in relation to not just the protection of children but cybersecurity and many other endeavours.

I was listening with great interest when the member for Sturt was talking about his experience in London when the terrorist attacks were happening there. It reminded me of one Christmas time when Leonie and I were staying in a hotel in Melbourne, and all hell broke loose just across the road at Federation Square. I can't remember the year—it would've been about 10 years ago. As it turned out, the AFP and Victoria Police pounced on some would-be terrorists and thwarted a terrorist attack. I think it was on 23 December—that's my anniversary date, so I remember the date—about 10 years ago. It was actually at Federation Square, and the police intervened with seemingly moments to spare. It really brought home to me that what we saw in New York, Washington and London can very well happen here in Australia. Of course, we saw that with the terrorist attack at the Lindt store in Sydney.

So, for anyone who thinks that Australia is immune to or is somehow quarantined from the risk of terrorist attacks that we have seen in other countries around the world, such as the US and the UK, that is a very, very dangerous presumption to hold. All Western democracies are at risk in the face of terrorism. It is true that terrorism has taken a back seat in recent times to seemingly more pressing issues, such as COVID and the threats that we face from a geopolitical perspective. But there are still those within our own communities, both from a religious perspective and a right-wing perspective, that seek to do Australians harm, and this bill will continue for another 12 months the protections that Australians deserve. I commend the bill to the House.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak for the people of North Sydney on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The introduction of this bill provides an important opportunity for the 47th Parliament to review, reflect and comment on this crucial area of law, which sits at the nexus between safety and freedom, and between security and respect for human rights. It is undeniable that both are fundamental to the society that we all wish to live in and want to create for our children. But it is also undeniable that this is a delicate balance to strike in a rapidly changing and complicated world. The late Margaret Stone AO was a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia, and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security from August 2015 until her retirement in August 2020. As she said:

The tension between secret intelligence and civil rights and liberties is not reconcilable; inevitably, secrecy threatens rights, and rights weaken secrecy.

In these circumstances, I note the purpose of the government's proposed amendment bill to extend for 12 months the sunsetting dates for stop, search and seizure powers; control orders; and preventative detention orders. This extension is for the express purpose of giving the government time to consult on, and then implement, its response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's bipartisan recommendations following its report presented to parliament in October 2021. This is a significant undertaking. The committee has made numerous recommendations. Key stakeholders including the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission have previously raised real concerns about extending these exceptional powers. Using control orders as a case in point, these orders, once executed, can last for 12 months and prevent a person from associating, or communicating, with specified individuals or accessing technology, including the internet. They can require a person to participate in specified counselling or education, to remain at specified premises between specified times on specified days for up to 12 hours a day and to wear a tracking device—all if a court decides that the allegation is more likely than not, which is a much lower standard of proof than that required to start a criminal prosecution.

Preventative detention orders allow police to detain people secretly for up to two weeks if, for example, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person will engage in a terrorist act, if that person possesses a thing connected with the preparation for a terrorist act or if that person has done an act in preparation for a terrorist act—basically, if the person is even suspected of being able to do something like that. Yet the detainee is not required to be informed of the reasons for their detention, is not entitled to contact any person except a family member or similar to let them know that they are safe but not able to be contacted for the time being, and is subject to having all communications with their lawyer monitored. This is the stuff of Hollywood fiction. Look no further than the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report to see it play out on big screens.

To give just one example of how concerning I know this is for my constituency, one of my constituents was so concerned by the rushed passage, over the strenuous objections of the Law Council of Australia, of the telecommunications amendment bill—known colloquially as the 'Mandatory metadata retention bill'—that, in addition to calling her local member, she wrote individually to every senator of New South Wales to express her alarm and consternation. That bill introduced one of the most comprehensive and intrusive data collection schemes in the Western world. So where do we currently stand and how does that compare to the legislative framework of similar or equivalent nations? In the 22 years since 9/11, Australia has enacted more than 130 piece of national security legislation; no other nation can match the volume of Australia's counterterrorism laws,. But it's not just the volume of the legislation that is noteworthy. The time spent considering the laws in draft before they are enacted is becoming shorter and shorter. The original antiterrorism laws in 2002 took many months to be considered before enactment. Now the speed with which laws are passed has led to one of the world's leading experts in counterterrorism laws, Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto, to describe Australia's approach as 'hyperlegislation'. The speed was fastest under the Howard government when, on average, a new counterterrorism law was passed every 6.7 weeks. The law preventing live streaming of terrorist acts introduced after the Christchurch massacre took just a week or so.

This haste should concern us all, for, as our third Independent National Security Legislator Monitor, Dr James Renwick CSC, SC noted, 'Speed in passing laws can sometimes be necessary, but it brings the risk of error and overreach.' In Australia, we are particularly vulnerable to overreach because, unlike other jurisdictions, we do not have a bill of rights. This means the government has been able to enact counterterrorism laws that would not be possible anywhere else in the world. For example, the mandatory retention of Australians' telecommunications metadata for two years would not be possible in the EU. The European Court of Human Rights has held that a blanket retention for that period of that time infringes a basic right to privacy. Similarly, in a review of counterterrorism laws in 2013, the Council of Australian Governments reported that preventative detention orders were more likely to be seen in discredited totalitarian regimes. An additional concern is how far the balance has moved, in Margaret Stone's words, 'from rights to secrecy'. Our hyperlegislation enables and entrenches high levels of secrecy. It is a crime to mention basic details about the use of many counterterrorism powers or even the mere fact that they were used.

These offences pose a serious risk to journalists and whistleblowers. Few would forget the dramatic days of raids by the Australian Federal Police on journalists at the ABC and News Corp in 2019, which prompted outrage and drew international attention to Australia's draconian secrecy laws. In relation to whistleblowers, the recent prosecutions of Bernard Collaery and Witness K, shrouded in secrecy and even conducted in closed court, provide examples of these tensions at work. As the decision of the ACT Court of Appeal in the Collaery case makes clear, the open hearing of criminal trials is important because it deters political prosecutions and allows the public to scrutinise the actions of both the prosecutors and the accused.

Although no-one would dispute the need for counterterrorism laws, we must also maintain the trust and avoid the persecution of minority communities and avoid transgressing rights to the point that grievances lead to radicalisation. The risk of getting the balance wrong and excessively eroding our human rights in the pursuit of protection from terrorism could, ironically and tragically, make us less safe. As the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in 2005:

… compromising human rights cannot serve the struggle against terrorism. On the contrary, it facilitates achievement of the terrorist's objective …

These are complex and vital issues for our society, well deserving of the extension of time sought by the government to review, consult and reform. Counterterrorism legislation measures should be justified as necessary, proportionate and consistent with rule-of-law principles. This is an important time to remind all of us—sitting as members in Australia's 47th Parliament—of Dr Renwick's salutary warning about these laws:

While often controversial in principle and almost always contestable as to their terms, they seem to have become permanent.

Over time, what were once seen as extraordinary laws have become acceptable as normal. This bill provides an opportunity to revisit the permanence of our hyperlegislation.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be able to speak on this very important legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. There's nothing more important than our national security. We as a nation have in the past had to confront the evil of terrorism, and it is important that we reflect on these laws and fully consider them in this chamber.

I want to make five key points. The first is obviously that terrorism in recent years has been something of a less prominent focus in public debate than in prior years. Much of the debate in recent years in the security setting has been about counterespionage. Of course, the previous government passed some very important legislation in relation to countering foreign interference in Australia, so espionage has been a big focus, as indeed have been broader concerns about geopolitical issues in our region. So there's been less public focus, certainly, on terrorism than there was some years ago. But it's certainly the case that the perverse ideologies of terrorism haven't gone away, and there are still people who want to act upon those ideologies. There are various strands of that, but those people are out there, and we must never, ever gloss over that extremely important fact. Evil exists in the world, and sometimes its manifestation is through terrorism. So we need to be conscious of that.

The central question on legislation like this is, of course, the balance between civil liberties and the protection of the broader community. That's a centuries-old area of focus because, when you put in place strong laws to protect against terrorism, you almost inevitably have some impact on civil liberties, and it's an issue on which debates will be had and people will put forward their views and so on. But I think we should always err on the side of protection and should always err on the side of caution because the consequences of terrorism are so horrendous for our community. We're not talking about something that has a minor impact. We're talking about something which, if it happens, has a devastating impact on our community.

Laws which enable our AFP and others to be on the front foot in protecting our community against terrorism should broadly be supported. This isn't an academic issue. We have seen terrorist plots, both those that have been averted and those that, very sadly, have come to fruition and have led to loss of life in Australia. We remember the very serious plot involving the Holsworthy Barracks, not far from my electorate in Sydney; the Endeavour Hills incident in Melbourne; of course, the horrific siege of the Lindt cafe; the terrorist murder in Parramatta; and the evil, terrorist incident in Bourke Street in Melbourne. Right there, that's a list of five very, very serious terrorist plots—some of which came to fruition, leading to the loss of life. So this isn't theoretical. It isn't academic. It's very real and it's very serious. So, for policymakers, the question is: on which side do you err? Because there is an inevitable tension between civil liberties and protection. I think one should err on the side of protection.

In the context of the legislation we're talking about today, it's particularly important to note—and I'll come in a moment to the three key provisions, although I don't propose to extensively repeat the contributions of earlier speeches—that, in the three key elements, two of those powers have never been used. Two of those powers have never been used. We have some example of the other power being used in a fashion which was effective and actually led to the imprisonment of two people. So it's very difficult to make an argument here that there is a disproportionality in the legislation, given that two out of the three provisions haven't been used. It's reasonable to raise civil liberties concerns, but it's hard to have a civil liberties problem if the law isn't, in fact, being exercised.

That was my fourth point. The fifth, broad point I want to make is that it is manifestly in Australia's interests that laws of this nature, wherever possible, are bipartisan. It is not in our national interest to, in my view, politicise or seek to make political capital out of these sorts of matters. I think the good thing about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is that it seems, over many years and under different chairs and under different compositions, to have achieved that, and that's really good. It doesn't always happen in this place. There are many areas where a robust and forceful public disagreement is often a good thing and leads to better policy, but this is an area where bipartisanship is to be preferred, wherever possible.

We've got a big report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's 114 pages long. It's got 19 recommendations, and the government, I think quite sensibly, is saying, 'Well, let's go through this carefully. Let's not rush the response to that. Let's balance the civil liberties concerns and the concerns about the protection of the Australian people, and let's do that over a 12-month process.' It seems to me that that is a very sensible thing. We don't have a scenario where there is evidence of these laws being misused or anything of that nature. So it seems to be me it's inherently sensible.

As my colleagues have touched on before, there are three key elements of the bill. There are the control orders that allow, in some circumstances, for people to be held if there is a reasonable fear that those persons may be planning or seeking to implement an act of terrorism. Those control orders have led to two people being jailed for breaching control orders—one as recently as earlier this year—and in both cases they were people that had been involved in the planning of terrorist acts. I think the Australian community would be very supportive of the use of those laws in that circumstance. The provision of preventative detention, where someone can be held without charge—which is obviously a very serious thing to do—where the AFP suspects that an attack is imminent and, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, to preserve evidence, has never been used. It's a sensible provision and I'm glad it's on the books, but it has never been used. Then there are the emergency stop and seizure powers under the Crimes Act, which again allow the police to take action where they perceive a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health, or safety. There are a whole bunch of safeguards as to how that power can be exercised, but again, it hasn't actually been used. It's certainly not a civil rights issue if it hasn't been used, but it's good it's there.

It's good that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has done such thorough and thoughtful work in reviewing this legislation, and I think it is eminently sensible of the government to take its time to carefully review that in the intervening 12 months, leaving in place the laws which are working effectively and coming back to this parliament in 12 months time with proposals as to how to further improve those laws. In doing so, the government's key motivation should be the protection of the Australian people, because there is nothing more important than that.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is about the extension of temporary arrangements to enable the parliament to act on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for tightening the permanent legislation. It is a priority, but it should not be rushed. I note the comments from the member for North Sydney, when she warned that we should not indefinitely have temporary arrangements and that we should be wary of encroachment on our civil liberties. I agree with her. Those are sound points. We do live in a precarious world, and who would have thought 20, 25 or 40 years ago that we would find ourselves with the kind of restrictions in our lives that we accept now for the public good—and, to be fair, Australia has been spared many of the terrorist acts that have happened around the world. I'm not critical of where we've arrived at—I'm certainly critical of those who have forced us into these positions—but in this case I think it's right that we should extend this temporary legislation for another 12 months while proper and correction consideration is given to that report.

It comes to three main points. I'm indebted to the former member for detailing them, and I will try not to take up too much time. The control orders allow for restrictions on people deemed to be a risk to our community, and they have been used. The prevention detention orders are for detaining people without charge, firstly for 24 hours and then with special approval for another 24 hours, where an attack is imminent. I don't think that many of us would argue about the need for that. I'm pleased that we haven't had to use it. The emergency stop and seizure powers, once again, have not been used but are fairly self-descriptive, being the ability to act without a warrant when imminent danger presents itself to the Australian public.

In a perfect world, we would have none of this—absolutely none of it. We're a high-functioning liberal democracy, but we are forced into the positions by those who bear us bad will. The world has changed over that last 20 or 40 years I spoke about—international travel, instant telecommunications, the worldwide objectives of terrorist groups. There was a time when people that had local conflicts and local arguments would keep their arguments and conflicts local, but with the diasporas that are spread around the world and with the constant movement of people, they are able to take up their arguments in other places. So it's changed and we have had little choice.

Now, make no mistake, individuals or groups, the religious and the political zealots, hate countries like Australia, and they mean us harm. They hate us because we're free. We're free to choose who we associate with, free to practise our religion of choice, free to educate our children in an institution of our choice. We have the ability to participate in our democracies and to say and do as we wish—unless, of course, it negatively impacts on others, and we have appropriate laws for those circumstances. Those who wish to attack us seek to reshape the world to suit their view, to make us succumb to their will, and we are their enemy. We should not think we are safe from this in Australia.

The Economist publishes an annual democracy table. There are 195 countries in the world; 167 of them are assessed by the Economist. I don't know what the other 20 or so countries are. I haven't been able to find them yet. Of those 167 countries, just 34 are deemed to be full democracies—just 34—and they only cover about six per cent of the world's population. We are indeed so fortunate in Australia. In these democracies, like Australia, we have civil liberties and political freedoms, valid systems of government checks, independent judiciaries and a free press. Australia is 13th on this list of 34. I thought we might do a bit better, but it's pretty good to be 13th in the world.

There are 47 countries with deficient democracies. They do have free and fair elections, but they have fundamental deficiencies like pressure on their press, suppression of critics and opponents, under-developed political cultures and low levels of participation in politics. Then there are 29 more immoderate autocracies. They have regular electoral frauds, preventing elections from being free or fair. They commonly have government applying pressure to oppositions, non-independent judiciaries, widespread corruption, pressure on media and anaemic rules of law. That includes countries like Iran. Given the tragic death of Mahsa Amini—and we've all been watching on the news the riots that are happening in Iran—one would wonder how much longer Iran will stay on that list before they drop to the hard autocracies. I might also point out that Russia sits on that list. The next list is 21 hard autocracies. These are the absolute monarchies or dictatorships that have sham elections and controlled courts and press. They include China and North Korea.

You might ask why I list these in a debate about terrorism. It's simply because, apart from some fairly notable exceptions, like Afghanistan, most of the terrorist attacks in the world are aimed at these fully functioning democracies—at the six per cent of people who are fortunate enough to live in a fully functioning democracy. They include Australia. I went through before why these forces of evil, if you like, who wish to push their will upon the world so detest countries like Australia. Let's look at a few of them. In the last few years France has had multiple attacks. You will remember well the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical newspaper—12 dead for publishing a cartoon. A teacher was beheaded for giving a lesson in tolerance and police were stabbed to death. France has an extensive list of terrorist attacks. And in little old Belgium—bombings—in 2016, 32 civilians were killed and 300 injured, and there were stabbing attacks on police. Then there's Canada. We remember well the attack on the Canadian parliament, where a police officer was killed in action on the steps of the Canadian parliament. In 2018, Germany recorded 1,088 violent crimes committed by extremists, including bomb attacks on mosques—extreme antisemitic activities. It's a great concern.

In the UK, remember the slaying of Jo Cox MP in 2016 by a white supremacist. The UK has a huge list of attacks throughout the last decade, including car bombs, train bombings, and mosques—they have it all. Then there's the US. Who can forget the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? The US is perhaps the world's No. 1 target. A report in 2017 reported 95 deaths and 932 injuries associated with terrorism singularly in that year. It was a bit of a surprise to me that the US just missed out on being a fully functioning democracy on a point system; they were one outside that bridge of 34. I think it's well worth throwing in as examples of what Australia could potentially face. All of these examples, apart from that one, are listed as full democracies. I remind the House that Australia is No. 13 out of 34. So we are well within the sights of those who wish democracies and liberalism around the world harm. So, while we are not immune, we will remember the Bali bombings in 2002—20 years ago—which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians; the Bali bombings in 2005—once again targeting Australians, amongst others—which killed 23 people, including four Australians; and the Lindt cafe siege, which killed three people. We are not immune.

To their great credit, our Federal Police and security forces have thwarted a number of other attempts in Australia. We have been the lower ebb. We are extremely fortunate in Australia to have good agencies. We also have the separation of distance and a whole lot of other things going for us, including a multicultural community that lives together in peace. But we are well advised to be on our guard. Unless we are prepared, we cannot take for granted our safety from religious and political zealots worldwide who are determined.

In finishing, one of the things that does concern me is that, while we have done well in thwarting terrorism and hopefully driving it back—we cede ground. Every time they succeed, we lose a little too. Our community is now beset with huge costs that are associated with, for instance, airport screenings—things that we would never have imagined 30 years ago. There are costs associated with all kinds of security around public events and, indeed, security around this place in which we speak today. All of those are an added cost to that that would have been envisaged when this building was built. It does come at a cost, and it does come as a small sacrifice of our personal freedoms, as I touched on at the beginning of this speech. That's why, wherever possible, there should be temporary measures. If they can't be temporary, then they should be properly thought through and investigated, and that's what the extension of this existing legislation will allow us to do.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Community Safety, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to rise and speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The bill basically allows the extension of powers for another 12 months. It is very important that the sunset clause is continued. It was when I was first elected in 2004, under the Howard government, that legislation regarding control orders, preventative detention orders, and emergency stop and seizure powers was introduced. Sometimes we actually forget why these laws are required. We obviously think back to September 11. But Australia has been very fortunate due to the magnificent detective work of our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies. Over the years they have done an incredible job of protecting Australians.

We can go back to the matter involving Benbrika. He was charged, along with a number of young people, for planning terrorist attacks in Melbourne—from memory, at the MCG and Federation Square. Benbrika had been booted out of the Preston mosque. He had a very extreme views. He actually cultivated and used young people to recruit and plan to commit these attacks. From memory, he was found as a result an operation called Operation Pendennis. If it wasn't for the great law enforcement work, these awful terrorist attacks would have occurred at the MCG, Federation Square and other places. Legislation has since been put in place to keep high-risk terrorist offenders behind bars. I note that the now Opposition leader, the previous Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, fought very hard for this legislation. Benbrika has been kept in prison for the simple reason that he hasn't changed his ways and views, and, if he does get out, he will be of high risk to the community.

As I said, sometimes we forget the great work of detectives across the country. I was going through speeches I've made on counterterrorism, and I am reminded that the Greens have opposed every single piece of counterterrorism legislation. Back in 2016, police foiled terrorist attacks that were planned for Anzac Day, awful attacks in which there were plans to stab and shoot police officers and members of the public. As I said in a speech I made in December 2016:

I remember how alert the police were at Anzac Day services and how concerned they were for their own safety. One of those charged was Sevdet Ramadan Besim, 19 years of age.

That's the thing—young people are often recruited in the terrorism world. Further:

After his plan was foiled, he pleaded guilty to a plot to run over and then behead a police officer before using his gun in a rampage. In the Victorian Supreme Court in September 2016, Besim was given a 10-year jail sentence, and must serve at least 7½ years …

There were also advanced plans to kidnap members of the public in Sydney and Brisbane and then behead them on camera and release the footage—absolutely shocking. Two schoolboys, who were allegedly preparing for a terror attack in Sydney's south-west, with police alleging they had links to Islamic State, were arrested and refused bail in October 2016. There was a plan to detonate bombs at a Mother's Day running event.

Again, I thank law enforcement agencies for the great work they've done. And it was back in the Howard days that this legislation was introduced.

When it comes to control orders, sometimes members of the public don't actually understand the need for them and their use. Control orders are used when, for example, police may be waiting on a court case and the person involved hasn't been remanded in custody—most times they would be remanded in custody—and there are still concerns about them. They will potentially be required to wear a leg bracelet to monitor their behaviour. Orders could be made that they cannot use social media or be in contact with other people. From memory, control orders are in place for a 12-month period.

To be honest, something else I've been fighting for for a number of years is what I call a community based order. I had this in the case of Numan Haider, who tried to stab two police at Endeavour Hills Police Station. Numan Haider was a person who was hanging around the Dandenong shopping centre with what was at the time the IS flag. Police didn't really have any powers to charge him; they just had powers to move him on from the shopping centre. The two law enforcement officers—I've actually met them in the past—arranged to meet with him at the Endeavour Hills Police Station. He pulled a knife out on them and tried to stab them and was subsequently shot.

One of the gaps is community based orders, and it is more the states who've failed on this. It could again be Islamic extremists, or it could be white supremacists; in recent years, the concerns have been more about the movement of white supremacists. This came from my background when I was formerly a member of the Victoria Police counterterrorism unit, so I have some knowledge of it. I again thank all my former colleagues and those still working in the area. The concern for the police is that someone may be watching beheading videos or hanging out with others who are talking about extremism. I was on a delegation a number of years ago when we met with a Swedish counterterrorism expert, and he pointed out to me and our delegation that, if you're simply around all day talking about jihad and terrorist attacks, sadly, something may eventually take place.

With this community based protection order, for example, in the case of people like Numan Haider, the police or someone else—it could be a family member, a religious leader or a friend—could take the person before a magistrate. The magistrate would hear the evidence about their concerns and could potentially put in place an order that the person who they have concerns about go and undertake a deradicalisation program, if there is such a thing—most of them haven't been effective—or at least get counselling or have an order that they have to stop watching these beheading videos or, in the case of someone like Benbrika, stop hanging around with someone who's a bad influence and is encouraging or inciting others to get involved in the world of terrorism. I still think there's a great need for that. Sadly, it always takes something really bad to happen before the legislation is put in place.

That brings me to preventative detention orders. At the start, when this was introduced under the Howard government, I was actually critical of this because it didn't go far enough. A preventative detention order is what it sounds like: it is to stop a terrorist attack. If a person—or it could be a number of people—is picked up by the police, and there's not enough evidence to arrest them under part IC of the Crimes Act of the Commonwealth, the person will be picked up under a preventative detention order and held—in police terms, kept on ice—to try to make sure that they aren't planning a terrorist attack.

The concern I had—and I raised my concerns with a number of attorneys-general of both political persuasions—was that law enforcement needed the ability, if a person were in custody or under preventative detention, to actually ask that person if they were planning anything or to ask about a co-offender who they were worried might be about to commit a terrorist attack. This legislation at the time didn't allow that. Police and law enforcement could not ask one question on this, and anything which was asked couldn't be used in evidence. From my understanding and knowledge when it comes to police investigations, counterterrorism investigations are super, super complex.

The good news when it comes to preventative detention is that now police and law enforcement do have that power. I note that it hasn't been used at the Commonwealth level, and I suspect that's because the state police have also put in legislation similar to what would be at the Commonwealth level. We need to do everything we can when it comes to making Australians safe and giving law enforcement the tools to do that.

I have some figures here on the number of those charged. A hundred and forty-four people have been charged in 71 counterterrorism related operations since 2004, so that's pretty amazing work by our law enforcement to go in there and prevent so many terrorist attacks. Sadly, we've seen terrorist attacks overseas, in the Bali bombings, where Australians died, and London has had so many.

The previous Liberal governments have been very strong when it comes to supporting the Australian Federal Police. Since 2014 the government has strengthened our national defence against terrorism, investing an additional $2.3 billion. The coalition has always had a very strong record in this space, providing funding of $1.7 billion for the Australian Federal Police and investing over $1.3 billion for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in the 2021-22 budget. As part of the plan, we released a new counterterrorism strategy. An additional investment of $86 million was provided in the budget to protect the community from threats posed by high-risk terrorist offenders, $66.9 million for continued support for the High Risk Terrorist Offender regime, and the implementation of the Extended Supervision Order Framework. The government also listed 28 terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code.

I note this bill will go for review to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I think is very important. That committee does great work. I was a member of that committee a number of years back, and they do great work going through the legislation.

I pay tribute to and pass on my sorrow to all the victims of terrorism, especially the family members. I always say this—when people think about events, whether they be Christmastime, birthdays or anniversaries, most of us look at them as exciting times, sadly, when people have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks they are always wondering why. When you look at people like those involved in the Bali bombings—there was one of the Sikhs over there who was involved in these attacks—they don't commit the attacks. It's like with the Australian embassy bombing—I saw the footage for that. The person involved in using the truck to go into the gates had no knowledge of how to drive a truck, and basically drove past it two or three times before they went in there and committed that attack. Sadly, a number of people—not Australians, but other people—lost their lives. We never can take this for granted.

Australia has also done fantastic work when it comes to overseas, providing funding for various counterterrorism centres around the world and in the south-east to support other law enforcement agencies, which has been so important. I thank all the other members, and I thank the government, which I can nearly say is in line with Liberal and Nationals members when it comes to this legislation. As I said right from the start, under the Howard government, when these powers were first spoken about, it was very, very controversial. I remember speaking on the 7.30 Report, saying it didn't go far enough because of the preventative detention measures. This is legislation which is very, very important.

My final point for those who voted for Greens at the election, they have never supported any counterterrorism legislation to make Australians safe, and they always seem to go on the side of the terrorists, rather than the side of protecting Australians.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, for giving me the call, and I thank the member for La Trobe for his words, who has great experience as a former serving police officer. The reason there was a lot of controversy when these laws were introduced was that they affect our freedoms. I don't know what you're like as a member of parliament, but every time I see a piece of legislation like this I place my children and my grandchildren into it. I say, 'What if this legislation were directed at my child, at my son, and they were detained, without charge, for a period of time?' That's why these issues are controversial. That's why when we, as a parliament, decide to extend these powers for another 12 months—whether they have been acted on or not, or used or not—an enormous amount of power is given to the Australian Federal Police to act on our behalf. As long as they are acting on our behalf, we will applaud each move that they make. But all of these powers can be misused and abused. I know no-one else will come in and talk about that today, but that is exactly the reason these powers were so controversial in the first place.

I'm here as a member of parliament not only to serve my constituency and this nation but to protect my constituency and this nation—even, sometimes, from our own government. And you say, 'What a preposterous proposition you're putting—that somebody somewhere would abuse these laws for their own benefit, that there would be no corruption in this country whatsoever, that no person would ever step out of line.' That's not what history tells us down the line, and that's why so many people who are libertarians—I don't know what you call them these days; there are not many left—look at these issues and take them really seriously. If powers like these are misused, your freedom's gone. I think they have been misused in Australia in the last 12 months, particularly in Victoria, but that is a whole other issue, and we won't go down that track.

The government and the former government—there will be no difference—are deciding that we should extend these powers for 12 months. So I immediately went to the legislation and asked, 'Why are we doing this?' We're doing this so we can give some consideration to other legislation that may be put in place and be considered by the government of the day. It will get the consideration of the backbench committee of the government of the day or the caucus committee of the government of the day, and the backbench committee or the caucus committee of the opposition of the day. It will be debated in the House. There will be consideration by the caucus and the party rooms, so there will be further consideration of this issue as we build up to new legislation that may cover it. So I start to feel a bit more comfortable, because I know the backbench committees in my party and the caucus committees within the Labor Party are not stupid. There are men and women in there that have views about these particular issues, and they will voice them.

Then the legislation will go to the Senate. I believe either the Greens or others will ask that it be considered by a Senate committee. So it will be considered again. I'm just making the point that, when we make legislation in this House, there's far more consideration given to it than what is in the Herald Sun for just a fleeting moment. I'm sure that the Independents will want to have something to say about powers that affect the freedoms and obligations of the Australian people.

I don't want my children, my grandchildren or any of my family or those that I care for to be pulled up in the street for no reason whatsoever. I think that you can be pulled over in a car for no reason whatsoever, for just a check. That was never the case years ago. You couldn't just be pulled over for no reason, just for a check. But I think you can be now.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is important. All the reasons listed for the bill—such as to protect the nation—are important because, as the member for La Trobe quite rightly said, the threat to Australia is still real and probable. I don't even like the ads on television that talk about the re-enactment of the Bali bombings. I don't want to watch a re-enactment of a horrific event, which was a major attack on hundreds of Australians who happened to be there at the time, and on the Germans and French and all the other people who were caught up in that horrible, horrible, horrible situation.

I hate terrorism. I hate the fear that drives it and I hate the disregard for human life that surrounds it—to create more fear. But I also fear incremental changes to our freedoms. Our freedoms are grievously important, and, if governments of the day and members of parliament as individuals don't have regard for the freedoms that are crucially important to a nation that has spilled blood for such freedoms, then they may be incrementally taken away, piece by piece, little by little, until the individual no longer has the rights that the previous generation enjoyed. That's the only point I'm making here.

There is good reason for this legislation to be put in this way, because the parliament wants more time to consider. I've just been through—before the member for Wright got here—a number of backup provisions and a number of committees that go through any legislation before it gets to the point of being enacted. We had a big fight about this legislation a long time ago. We had a big fight about the controversy of it. And it wasn't even in the context of an immediate threat. There have been times in this country when we've faced the threat of terrorism, and in fact some damage has been done by individuals. All of these things that are in this bill do go toward protecting Australians. I don't deny that. And there can always be good arguments put up for bad legislation. I'm not suggesting this is bad legislation. I'm just suggesting to you all that protecting freedoms in this nation should be priority No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3.

When I leave this place—and, guess what, we all do. One day, even you two younger members of parliament on the other side will leave. One day we all leave. I'm going to make sure that, when I leave this place, I leave this nation as free as it was when I first came here in 1990, because that is really important to me. That's a legacy that we must leave as a nation. When our men and women have gone and shed their blood overseas for us, and you ask them why, they will say, 'Because we were fighting for the freedom to live the way we want to live in this nation.' I'm not going to go into the restrictions that were put in place in Victoria because of COVID, the excuses that were given, the responses that happened there and the powers that they then claimed back to enact what they wanted to enact using the Victorian police. I am very, very attuned at this time to any legislation that may affect health, wellbeing and, especially, freedom of movement and freedom of association. I want to be able to walk down the street in the freest nation in the world.

I know we're not under threat like other nations, like Israel and Palestine—what's happening in the Middle East. We don't live that life. We're not waiting for a missile to come roaring over from nearby, from Mount Ainslie or somewhere, and drop into parliament. We don't live that life. We're not Israelis. We're not Palestinians. We're not all the people under threat around the world. And it gives us a different view. The Australian view says: 'She'll be right. You can bring in legislation like this. It's not a problem unless it's misused or abused.' Why would it be misused or abused? I don't know. The other option is that we don't have legislation like this at all, and then the Federal Police can't act. That's not a go either. That doesn't work for me either. You have to give the powers to the Federal Police to be able to act on your behalf. But, at the same time, I notice that each time there is judicial oversight along the track.

An honourable member: I don't think they have been used.

No, they haven't been used. But, once these laws are in place, it wouldn't surprise me if in 12 months time the government come back and say, 'Look, we need another 12 months,' and then the laws will have been enacted and in place for a number of years. I think what this should be saying is, 'If this comes back again, there should be amendments moved to say, "No, we'll do a full review."'

An honourable member: Tie it to the resolution.

Absolutely. This legislation says that we're working towards new legislation—I don't want to run out of time here. That's fine, except that the sunset clauses are put in legislation like this because of the seriousness of the legislation. They're not put in there just to say, 'Oh, we'll have a look at that at the end of a certain amount of time.' The sunset clauses are put in there to say, 'Yes, we recognise how important this legislation is to the freedom and wellbeing of this nation, so we're putting in a sunset clause so the government of the day, which is a new government, has to come back and look at the legislation.' They have to, because there's a sunset clause there,. I'm sure the Australian Federal Police are saying, rightly, to the government: 'Look, these laws have been extremely important to us to be able to use if we need them. So they're there ready to go. We have been very careful in how we've used them to this point.' And they have, clearly, because they haven't used any of them. They've been very careful as to how they've used them, because they know how sensitive this is for the Australian people.

I suppose a lot of the Australian people just expect us—and expect you too, and you too, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker—to act on their behalf. They want to believe that you are protecting them in everything you decide in this place so they don't have to worry about it. They will say to me, 'Russell, we elected you to make these decisions.' I had some contractors in my house. I won't tell you what the issue was, but one day they said, 'If you don't make it compulsory, that'll be fine.' One of them turned to me and said, 'Look, Russell, we actually elected you to make this decision.'

So I feel a very heavy responsibility when it comes to bills like this that affect the individual freedom of everybody in this nation, because I believe Australia needs to be a beacon of freedom. We need to be a place where people know they can come, get refuge and live in a free society. This may all sound like rhetoric to some people, but it's real because it's real legislation. They can really arrest you. They can arrest you without charge. They can accost you without charge. Yes, it's serious, because it's all about our freedoms. That's why I am pleading with all parliamentarians: take this legislation very seriously. On anything that comes up that's going to affect your personal freedom or your family's personal freedom or your grandchildren's personal freedom, make sure that you give it your best shot and that you are very comfortable with what the government is doing at any time in legislation that has such a dramatic effect. We've had the blue about it, and now we're agreeing with and supporting this legislation. Thank you for your indulgence.

Debate adjourned.