Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the bill before the House. It's a continuation of counterterrorism powers held by the AFP. These powers were brought in by our previous coalition government, and they are due to sunset on 7 December 2022. This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill, extends the powers until December 2023.

In speaking to this bill, there are three areas that I think are crucial to address. I'll cover them in general and return to the specifics as we go through. But, firstly, this bill, in how it sits within our desire to find the balance between the appropriate level of individual freedoms and the need for government authority to protect those freedoms, speaks very much to the heart of the Liberal movement. It's an often debated position within our party—the role of the libertarian within modern liberalism. I think we can trace back, through the writings of John Locke and Thomas Paine, that idea that there are inherent freedoms that each of us brings and that exist prior to the creation of the state, while also balancing that with the need for governments to protect and to look after the common good. Finding that balance is the role of government. I don't think there is any argument that stands for one side to be in an absolutist position. Certainly, this bill, and how it sits within the suite of other legislation that has been provided to keep Australians safe, very much works within that theme.

Secondly, I think it's important to view this bill within the context of not just the threats that existed when its predecessor came into being but those that exist today in the world around us, and those that we can—without risk of being too strong or forceful—acknowledge may still exist in the short or medium term.

Clearly, there's an important role for governments to play in communicating what those threat levels may be, and I think it's important that we strike the right balance in speaking both clearly and robustly on the threats that exist, but also that we never go too far or delve into the dramatic. But it is clear at this time that the threat of terrorist action still exists internationally and within our own borders. I acknowledge the efforts of this government and previous governments of both persuasions in working together to address those risks. This legislation is very much the result of previous efforts that have been made.

Thirdly, the other theme that this legislation speaks to and sits within is how we make the federation model work. Obviously a broader conversation has happened in this place and in the wider Australian community that speaks to the need for us to update and constantly reassess how the federation model can best come together. Clearly the responsibility for policing has been gifted to the states, but over time we've seen a growing need for the role of a federal police force. As technology changes, as new threats come to us and as the world around us changes, that desire, that need, for a federalised force continues and will continue to be a focus for us. I will come back to those views later.

To quote the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security advisory report on the original bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Bill 2019:

The Bill makes changes designed to keep Australians safer. It implements a COAG agreement to ensure a presumption that neither bail nor parole will be granted to those persons who have demonstrated support for, or have links to, terrorist activity. This decision followed the terrorist attack in Brighton, Victoria in June 2017. The perpetrator of that attack was on parole for State offences, and had previously been charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist attack.

The extension of these powers will allow sufficient time for parliament to consider more detailed amendments to existing AFP powers, including recommendations made by the PJCIS in the report I have quoted, which was tabled in October 2021.

I think the underlying purpose of this bill is to ensure that our frontline forces that combat organised crime, terrorism and complex transnational crime have the right tools to keep Australians safe. I commend the government for seeking to extend this bill, and I commend those on our side of the House who brought forward the original bill. I think it's important to end by noting the bilateral support for the AFP that has existed and that will continue to exist.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Terrorism is one form of politically motivated violence. Under section 4 of the ASIO Act 1979, it's defined as a specific set of activities, including acts or threats of violence, that are likely to achieve a political objective, either in Australia or overseas; acts or threats of violence intended to influence the policy of a government, either in Australia or overseas; acts that involve violence or are likely to lead to violence and are directed to overthrowing or destroying the government or the system of Australian government; acts that are defined as terrorism offences; and certain other acts defined in Australian legislation relating to the taking of hostages or activities conducted on ships, offshore platforms or aircraft.

This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 provides for the continuation of important counterterrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians, extending three key counterterrorism powers for an additional 12 months: the emergency stop, search and seizure powers; the control order regime; and the preventative detention order regime. In October last year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security presented its report into its statutory review of these powers and unanimously supported the extension of the powers, subject to certain amendments, including the introduction of additional safeguards. The current powers are due to sunset on 7 December this year. With the introduction of the federal election this year, I do note and support the additional time needed for the federal government to consult with states and territories in relation to any proposed amendments. By sunsetting the date by 12 months, the government and opposition can reach a bipartisan position on new legislation to amend part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 based on the complex recommendations of the PJCIS.

Just a few weeks ago, much of the world quietly observed the 21st anniversary of the September 11 attacks. For anyone in their late 30s to early 50s, these attacks were a defining moment in history, particularly as they made the threat of terrorism in our own country a real possibility. Although September 11 occurred on foreign soil and Australian lives were lost, the impact of this terrorist attack led to foreign policy decisions that have an impact to this day, most notably the decision to undertake military operations in Afghanistan.

Closer to home, we are just weeks away from the 20th anniversary of the Bali bombings. On the night of 12 October 2002, large-scale terrorism inched closer to Australia's doorstep, taking the lives of 202 people, including 88 Australians. Over the past decade in Australia, we have seen several terrorist attacks and many disrupted plots, including the stabbing of two police officers in Melbourne in 2014, the murder of a police accountant in Parramatta in 2015, and the disruption of attacks allegedly planned for Anzac Day and Mother's Day in 2015.

Currently, Australia's national terrorism threat is listed as 'probably', meaning there is credible intelligence assessed by Australia's security agencies indicating that individuals and groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. This bill ensures the continuation of key counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. It is important to note that these powers are rarely used. In fact, no preventative detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Nonetheless, it is imperative that we provide our intelligence and security agencies with the necessary means to ensure the adequate protection of Australia and Australian security.

While many may perceive the threat of terrorism in the form of religiously motivated violent extremism to be the most concerning, there has been a sharp increase in people becoming motivated by other forms of violent extremism, including ideologically motivated violent extremism and, specifically, nationalist and racist violent extremism. Nationalist and racist violent extremists are more active than in previous years and pose a serious threat to Australian security. According to an interview in 2021 with the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, the threat from ideologically driven violent extremism has now reached 50 per cent of ASIO's total onshore counterterrorism priority case load for the first time.

The terrorism threat facing Australia continues to evolve. Where previously the key threat had been large-scale, organised terrorist networks, it has shifted to smaller scale attacks by individuals or small groups. The extension of the sunsetting date of these powers ensures that the Australian Federal Police continue to have appropriate powers to respond to terrorism related threats and, importantly, allows the parliament enough time to consider the complex recommendations of the PJCIS on future updates to these powers.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 is not controversial. It's a bill that's been brought to the House previously by our government, and it has bipartisan support as we move forward. It's noncontroversial because it enacts a sunset clause in the legislation. Currently, our threat level is probable, and, while I believe that none of the measures contained in this bill have been acted on previously, it's a matter of course that we arm our AFP, our brave personnel, with the instruments that they require to be effective in the art of counterterrorism.

We will hear a number of contributions today. But in the small amount of time that I have, I want to expand on a recent trip. I was very fortunate to be able to travel to Israel, a country that doesn't enjoy the relaxed risk weighting that we have in our country. While we were in Israel—it was only a couple of weeks ago—we had the opportunity to catch up with the Palestinian Prime Minister and to get a sense of the constant threat that they live under and how present terrorism is in their community. Once we got through the airport, we were put into the transport to our hotel. The first realisation I had that, 'Oh my God, this is about to get real,' was when the person who opened the door in the hotel—the concierge or bellboy—was armed with a nine-millimetre Glock to take my bags up to the hotel for me. I did have a quick conversation with him, defending our nation when he made the assumption that we were all Americans. I said, 'No, we're Australians.' He said, 'Where are you from?' I didn't think he would know where Boonah was, so I said the closest large community to me, the Gold Coast. He said, 'Oh, party city!' I said: 'Yes. You know the Gold Coast?' He said: 'Yes. I was in Australia recently. I went to Canberra.' He had no idea what my job was. I said, 'My job takes me to Canberra periodically.' He said, 'Ah, Canberra—the most boring place in Australia!'

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just reporting the facts, just reporting the commentary!

Nevertheless, the bill before us is about counterterrorism. We also learnt while we were there that the Israelis spend north of 30 per cent of their GDP on defence. The Iron Dome technology has three layers, and has north of 95 per cent accuracy in intercepting bombs that are launched at their community—mid-range, high-range and ultrahigh-range missiles. It was a daunting experience to be there and understand the gravity of what the world of terrorism looks like.

When we went into the West Bank we saw memorials not that dissimilar to the memorials in our small communities where we honour our Anzacs. In the West Bank they also have memorials, but they honour those who have strapped suicide vests to themselves and gone to take the lives of innocent people. The government pays their families a stipend. It's called 'pay for slay'. The more people you take out—innocent people, children—with a suicide vest, the higher your family's remuneration, and then you're honoured in perpetuity on these memorial-like stone markings outside significant buildings.

When we grasp what a country that is under constant terrorism threat looks like, and we cross-reference that to what we have here, it is a good thing that both sides of our House are united in arming our AFP personnel with the tools that they need—and I commend them for never having had to engage one of them. But the fact that we arm them gives us a sense of what our preparedness is and the lengths that we will go to to protect the freedoms and the liberties that we have, and the extent that this parliament will go to to protect those, so that, every night when we put our head on our pillow, we sleep under a blanket of security provided by our forefathers and the fact that our AFP personnel will fight to protect us on a daily basis. I commend the bill to the House.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is vital that every step is made to protect Australians' way of life from terrorist activity. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 stands to ensure the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that keep each and every one of us safe from criminal activity. Australians should be able to be carefree, focused on themselves and their family, their work and their future without the incessant worry of becoming a victim of senseless crime. While it is vital to implement legislation that keeps Australians safe, we must also remember that we are part of a liberal democracy, and, as lawmakers in this place, we must protect the individual rights of Australians. It is always a matter of striking a balance, and this bill achieves that.

With 18 convicted terrorists due for release into the community within the next four years, the former coalition government had foresight to protect Australians going forward, knowing that some terrorists are beyond the brink. The bill before us today is just another example of us needing to do everything in our powers so that our law enforcement agencies have the requisite tools and powers to safeguard Australians from harm. As legislators, our responsibility is to prevent radicalisation and to rehabilitate violent extremists, when possible, to keep Australians safe. We need to give law enforcement agencies the resources and powers to tackle these threats, and we need to ensure our country's counterterrorism arrangements are consistent, resilient and proportionate to the threats at hand.

In the coalition's time in government, the total investment in programs countering violent extremism was nearly doubled. This is a clear representation of the coalition's continued support to keeping Australians safe from violent extremist ideologies in all forms. As a new MP, it's great to see—it's not unexpected—the bipartisan support for this bill and for our AFP.

In recent years, the threat of cyberterrorism has increased, with more incidents recorded now than ever before. While of different nature to the terrorist activity that the bill before us seeks to prevent, cyberterrorism has the potential to cause great harm. Last Thursday we saw what cyber incidents can look like. The Optus data breach saw 9.8 million Australians affected, with 2.8 million people losing 'significant amounts of data'. Information including customer's names, dates of birth, email addresses, phone addresses, addresses associated with their account, drivers licence numbers and passport numbers was compromised.

But the seriousness of cybercrime does not end there. In 2007 Estonia was bombarded by cyberterrorist activity that led to huge communications breakdowns, banking failures and media blackouts—destabilising their whole economy. More recently, Ukraine, in the months leading up to the Russian invasion, was subject to cyberattacks that took down around 70 government websites, including those for key ministries as well as those for bank services. In this evolving world, we must keep up to date on all forms of threats and acknowledge that they can come from any angle.

The September 11 attacks of 2001 occurred 21 years ago, when I was in year 11. We all remember where we were when we heard about the attacks. These attacks shaped all of our lives, and we must remember, even as the world addresses new geopolitical challenges, with much focus on cybercrime and tensions with Russia and China, that the threat of terrorism in all forms still exists. We must stay vigilant to the evils that exist in the world. With 29 terrorist organisations now listed under the Criminal Code, it is more important than ever to maintain our country's safety. We must make laws that protect our citizens from terrorism, while also ensuring our freedoms are maintained within Australia's liberal democracy.

Every Australian deserves to live carefree, with the knowledge that their law enforcement agencies are doing everything that they can to prevent terrorist activity on our country's soil. The extension of the sunsetting date of these vital powers that the Australian Federal Police hold will allow them to continue to respond to terrorist threats, while giving the parliament sufficient time to ensure the complex recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on updating these powers. I am proud to support this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a quote that's often attributed to Benjamin Franklin—I made sure it was actually from him—and it's this:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Like with all quotes, it's important to acknowledge its context. I dug a little deeper, and it wasn't about a circumstance such as this, in that period of America's history, where they were enforcing powers for the police to stop a terrorist group, or help with the war; it was about a tax dispute. As we know from the American revolution, tax can really get people's passions boiling and lead to a revolution. That particular tax dispute was between the Penn family and the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

Despite the context, the quote is important because it goes to the heart of what's happening here. We're trying to get that fine balance between keeping Australians safe and enforcing our liberties and freedoms, including the presumption of innocence, and not detaining people unnecessarily. People often refer to judicial discretion, and it's an important part of the justice system, but something that's often overlooked is the discretion for police and for prosecutors. When you look through our criminal law history, that's probably the greatest filter for discretion. Whenever there's a debate on mandatory sentencing, I think it focuses on the wrong discretion. When we look at that discretion of the Australian Federal Police, they deserve credit.

This particular regime has some really serious powers, and we rely on the judgement of the individual detectives and officers to make a call on that. When you look at the three components of the regime, the first being the stop, search and seizure powers, they've enacted it zero times. When you look at the second part—the control order regime—it has happened 23 times, and once for someone who's under 18. The third, the preventative detention order regime, has happened zero times. It's important that we acknowledge the work that's done by the Australian Federal Police in having a check on their own power. That should always be something we monitor from this place, and that is why I think that it is important this is reviewed as much as it can be. I also think that when you look at the report from the joint parliamentary committee on the additional safeguards, those safeguards are important, but it is also important that we work through the agencies and the state governments to make sure that they're enforced properly.

We should never forget the history of this particular regime. It goes back to 2005. I remember I was a junior lawyer, feeling sorry for myself doing a mergers and acquisitions agreement late at night, and I noticed on the TV in the corner there was a London bus. We all know what they look like, but the top was peeled open like a tin of baked beans. I had the sickening feeling that, four years after September 11, something was happening again, and that wasn't a once-off incident. I downed tools on the particular agreement I was drafting, because it didn't matter anymore. Not only did I look in horror at that bus that was peeled open, but then I also saw smoke coming out of the tube. Many Australians have had wonderful experiences in London, and we look in envy at their train system, thinking, 'Why can't we have that in Melbourne or Sydney'—well, definitely in Melbourne. The important thing is that there were people in there. There were people on that bus. And our first duty as a government is to keep people safe. How do we do that while getting that fine balance between not abusing powers and making sure that Australians are safe. I think this regime strikes that balance. But that's not always the case, and I think it's important that we look at this again and again.

I commend the report from the joint standing committee. There's a lot of work in it. They heard submissions from human rights commissioners and the Law Council, who gave quite harrowing stories of some people who were permanently affected by this and ultimately proved to be innocent. We should never forget that the presumption of innocence is such an important part of who we are—not just our judicial system but our sense of fairness. We'll have that debate about the anti-corruption commission today, but at the pointy end of criminal law is where it matters most. I think we should make sure we get this balance right. I commend the report by the joint standing committee, and I commend the amendment.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

LLESPIE () (): The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 as proposed—continuing the sunsetting for another year while things are reviewed—is a really important bill. We are fortunate in this country that we haven't had any terrorism events recently, but there's certainly been a long list of foiled and prevented terrorist attacks. We all know about shootings of police officers in Parramatta and plans to do bad things at power stations and water supplies around the country, and the threat still remains probable. That is the existential issue that drives this legislation.

The powers in the bill, if they're not applied appropriately, can be interpreted as overstepping the mark, but control orders, preventative detention orders and emergency stop and seizure powers are reasonable powers to have when intelligence comes through but the hurdle of going through a whole legal process is just not practical. But, in the application of these, there still has to be federal court involvement. There still have to be senior officers on the enforcement side of things—the AFP or state jurisdictional police. They have to have a basis of fact behind the application for getting these orders in place through a court. It's really common sense. If we don't have this, the intelligence agencies could end up being where they were with the September 11 situation, where there was all this chatter going on but people didn't have the wherewithal to connect the dots. But some of the people in the security establishment in the United States of America were putting the pieces together, from what I have read.

When our AFP get information, they can only detain a person for an expected 14 days. After that, they are released or it goes to a court and is judged by normal processes. It has a limited immediate application, and I think that the powers that are embodied in this are reasonable, considering the seriousness of the possibilities of a terrorist attack when they get this sort of information. I know they've used this without legislation—the principle of intelligence. So they've gone through the process, but sometimes things move very rapidly, and I think extending it for another 12 months seems a reasonable move for exceptional situations. So I look forward to this initiative getting support in the House, and I've said my piece.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eternal vigilance—that's the price of freedom. Australia is not immune from acts of terror. We only have to look at the Lindt Cafe siege on 15 December 2014, when Man Haron Monis took hostages for some 16 to 17 hours, resulting in his death and, sadly, those of two hostages, Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson. Whilst this incident was determined to be a lone wolf attack, the 2002 Bali bombings certainly were not. On 12 October that year, 20 years ago, it was so tragic. Of course, the 11 September 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attacks were still fresh in our minds at that time.

A division having be en called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:34 to 10 : 49

A total of 202 people died in those Bali bombings, and a further 209 were injured. Eighty-eight Australians lost their lives. Three had links to the Riverina. They were Clint Thompson from Leeton and David Mavroudis from Wagga Wagga, whose family lived opposite our family home in Tatton—two of the six members of the Coogee Dolphins football club who perished—and Shane Walsh-Till, originally from Coolamon. I knew Shane very well—I played cricket with him—and, as I said, I knew the family of David very well.

Those who were left behind continue to be strangled by the evil tentacles of terrorism. They do not have the fortune to have a vague memory of a news article fading into obliviousness; they live with the cost of terrorism each and every day. We all want our freedom, and we're a lucky country, but that luck does not come by chance. We look at some of the atrocities being committed in other nations, and we should be grateful these are scenes which we do not experience generally in our own backyard. Nor do we ever want them to in future. If we do not continue to be vigilant to the threat of terrorism, our nation and our people will become more vulnerable.

As we know, the current terrorism threat environment continues to be highly relevant in considering, with this bill, all of the measures contained therein. Australia's national terrorism threat is said to be 'probable'. That is worrying. This means Australia's security agencies' credible intelligence assessment indicates individuals and groups have the intent and the capability to conduct a terrorist act in this country—to wreak havoc, to destroy, to maim and to kill. This bill provides for the continuity of important essential counterterrorism powers to keep Australians safe. After all, that is the first priority of government and of parliament: to protect its people and to preserve life.

Such powers are rarely used yet are key powers which are critical and essential, needed by our hardworking and highly professional intelligence and security agencies. May I just place on the record that they are the best of the best. We should be very proud of those people who occupy those very important positions. They ensure the adequate protection of Australia and our nation's security. All powers will continue to be under thorough safeguards and oversight, including by allowing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to again review the declared area offence, before their sunsetting date. This is important.

We need to uphold the sanctity of the people who protect us. We need to continue, particularly in relation to people who are civic leaders, to admire and protect what they represent and what they stand for. There is a senator in the other place, David Shoebridge, who says, 'There's a word for a group of people who routinely break the law: police.' I do not believe Senator David Shoebridge represents what most Australians think, and to hear him talking this morning about all matters integrity just defies logic.

We ought not delay this bill. It should be passed as soon as practicable, to give our police and all our protective, security and intelligence agencies all the help they need. We should never decry what our police and those agencies do in the name of freedom, in the name of democracy and in the name of keeping Australia and Australians safe. I commend the bill.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022, is very important, given that Australia's national terrorism threat level is 'probable'. This means that there's very credible intelligence, assessed by Australian security agencies, that individuals and groups have the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist act in Australia. This bill will provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers that the AFP needs to help keep Australians safe.

The AFP do extraordinary work. They are Australia's national policing agency, with a role to protect Australians and Australia's interest from serious criminal threats. In 2021, 411 disruptions were recorded across 22 countries, including three major counterterrorism disruptions. They were involved in drug seizure operations; terrorism investigations; child exploitation operations; working with overseas police in offshore peace, stability and security operations; capacity building; and capability development.

We saw, with Operation Ironside, the biggest organised crime operation in the AFP's history, a long-term covert investigation into transnational and serious organised crime groups that were responsible for large drug importations, drug manufacturing and attempts to kill. We need to make sure that the AFP continues to have the powers it needs.

As the Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories in the previous government, I want to thank the AFP for the work they did during COVID, particularly in supporting the significant efforts applied to keep local people and communities safe in our most remote locations.

One of the things I'm proud that we did in government is, through the AFP, establishing the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. The coalition government established this in 2018 to counter the epidemic of child exploitation, focused on countering online child sexual exploitation—a critical role.

The AFP, as we know, are a very efficient, effective and successful organisation. They provide policing in international, national and community environments. They adapt constantly to the latest threats and risks and they worked tirelessly in this space. They're currently working on the Optus data breach. As situations arise, and prior to that, they are constantly at work. There are businesses in my electorate that have been victims of denial-of-service attacks, and I suspect we will see more of this in the future. There are additional cyber and online laws that we introduced while in government.

Given that we are heading to 29 September, National Police Remembrance Day, I would also like to acknowledge the police officers who were killed or lost their lives while on duty protecting their community, those who made the ultimate sacrifice, including our AFP officers. There are 808 names on the National Police Memorial here in Canberra, and we show respect and gratitude for all of the officers' courage and sacrifice. Each one is represented by touchstones on that memorial wall. The names of fallen AFP officers are recorded on an honour roll at the AFP Memorial and the National Police Memorial.

I'd like to thank every police officer, past and present, for their selfless service to our communities. As first responders, they deal with some of the most horrendous, dangerous and often tragic situations. I also acknowledge that the physical and emotional cost of the work they do can last a lifetime. I want to thank their families as well. I thank the police officers for their dedication to their duty and their compassion for the communities they work in. Our communities right around Australia rely on our police services to provide local law enforcement and to help ensure community safety. While we were in government, our national security agencies, including the AFP, prevented a number of mass casualty terrorist attacks. That's what they do, and often we don't hear about it. They work constantly in this space. The extension of the sunsetting date of the powers in this bill will make sure that the AFP continues to have appropriate powers, the powers they need to respond to terrorist related threats.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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