Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 is incredibly timely. What this bill ultimately does is enable us to continue to keep our communities safe from terrorism while making sure that there are the appropriate safeguards in place in doing this. As a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, it is incredibly important to me that we build on the work that has been done for over a decade to ensure that we can keep the community safe. When the threat of international terrorism really started to hit our shores, from 2013 on, the parliament worked very carefully to put forward and agree to major pieces of counterterrorism legislation. Now, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need this legislation, but the fact is that we don't live in a perfect world and we have to deal with threats that are real and present. And, sadly, given that abhorrent Hamas attack on Israel a little over a week ago on 7 October, that threat could become real and apparent again here in this nation. So, as a parliament, we've got to work together to make sure that we can address that.

This bill seeks to implement several of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's 2020-21 review of police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order regime, the preventative detention order regime and the continuing detention order regime. The PJCIS report, which was tabled in October 2021, unanimously supported the extension of the powers reviewed, subject to certain amendments and the introduction of additional safeguards. The review made 19 recommendations to this end, all of which were accepted by the government in its response in September 2023. The sunset dates for the stop, search and seizure powers and the control order and PDO regimes were extended for 12 months, until 7 December 2023, following passage of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022 in October 2022. The coalition supported this bill which gave the government additional time to finalise its response to the PJCIS review and to consult the state and territory governments in the drafting of new legislation.

The current bill introduces several reforms to ensure law enforcement agencies are equipped to protect the community from terrorism, while improving safeguard mechanisms. It does this by extending the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for three years and enhancing safeguards on the use of those powers; enhancing oversight over the minister's power to declare a prescribed security zone; extending the operation of the control order regime for three years and enhancing the safeguards and effectiveness of control orders; extending the operation of the preventative detention order regime for three years and bolstering safeguards that apply to the issuing of PDOs; enhancing transparency requirements on continuing detention orders; and extending the operation of criminal liability offences for breaches of non-disclosure duties until 29 December 2024 while the government considers the report of the Commonwealth's review of secrecy provisions. I note that this last provision is unrelated to the PJCIS review.

It is always wise and sensible when laws, especially of this nature, are put in place that they continue to be reviewed, that they continue to be enhanced and that we continue to look at the safeguards around them, and it is absolutely appropriate for the parliament to continue to do this and to provide advice to the government on what the best way to continually enhance these laws is. The PJCIS, as a mechanism for doing this, has been able to do this work comprehensively and cooperatively now for over a decade. My hope is that it will be able to continue to do this, because if it were put in a position where it couldn't then the parliament, our democracy and ultimately our nation would be less safe as a result. I hope the government continues to bear this in mind.

When this bill was introduced, the Attorney-General noted that the government would not be implementing recommendation 6 of the PJCIS AFP powers review at this time but agreed to it in principle. That recommendation related to amending section 3UEA of the Crimes Act to require any agency that enters premises in accordance with that section to obtain an ex post facto warrant as soon as possible following the use of warrantless entry powers. The government noted that the complexity and significance of this matter warrants further consideration and consultation to develop an appropriate policy response. The coalition stands ready to assist with this process to ensure the intent of the PJCIS recommendation is realised. Our hope is that that is where the government will ultimately end up—making sure that the intent of this recommendation is realised.

The bill would provide for the continuation and enhancement of important counterterrorism powers that law enforcement agencies require to protect Australians. As I said earlier, once again we are seeing an absolute need for these powers. My hope is that we're not going to see an uptick in potential terrorism threats in this nation, but as always we have to be guarded and mindful that this might occur, especially given, as I mentioned, the abhorrent Hamas attack that occurred on 7 October. This bill will ensure our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to manage the threat of terrorism while protecting the rights of individuals through stronger oversight and safeguards.

The coalition will always support sensible changes which ensure our legislation is fit for purpose to enable our law enforcement agencies to protect Australians from terrorism. That is why we wanted appropriate due diligence of this bill by the PJCIS and we wanted to ensure that this legislation will deliver that outcome: a safer Australia with the proper safeguards to do that. That is why, subject to the report of the PJCIS that has been tabled today, we will be supporting the passage of this bill.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

WAITE (—) (): The unfortunate and evil events that we've seen in the Middle East of recent times highlight the importance of Australia's counterterrorism, police, and security and intelligence agencies having the appropriate mechanisms and legal backing to ensure that Australians are kept safe into the future. The great thing about our nation is that we've made a success of multiculturalism. That success has been based upon respect for people of diverse backgrounds, diverse religions and minorities, but it's a very, very fragile part of our democracy and it doesn't take much to ensure that that success is undermined. That's why it's important that the parliament is continually updating our security and intelligence legislation to ensure that Australians are kept safe from impending threats into the future and that, into the future, we continue to be a very successful multicultural nation based on respect for diversity.

This bill, the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, is about ensuring that we regularly update our counterterrorism laws in this country. It will ensure that our law enforcement agencies are equipped with the tools that they need to respond to terrorism and violent extremism, keeping Australian safe into the future. The bill provides for the continuation and enhancement of key counterterrorism powers. The bill also, importantly, enhances safeguards. It ensures that we get the balance right between protecting Australians and protecting civil liberties. That's not an easy thing to do, but we believe that, because we have a committee like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and intelligence that is able to thoroughly look over proposals such as this and recommend changes to the parliament, we are able to get the balance right in Australia. The powers that are promoted by this are always subject to the rule of law and procedural fairness, and that's what comes through in the report of the PJCIS.

The majority of the measures in this bill implement recommendations made by the parliamentary joint committee in its 2021 AFP powers review. That review looked into police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order regime, preventive detentions and the continuing detention order regime. The first group of amendments under this bill relates to amendments to the Crimes Act. The bill extends the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for a further three years, to 7 December 2026. That will ensure that the police remain equipped to prevent and respond to terrorist acts and, also, that the provisions are reviewed again within an appropriate period to ensure that they continue to be fit for purpose and meet the objective of countering current threats.

The bill also introduces new requirements for the minister, before declaring a prescribed security zone, to consider a number of specific matters, including the reasonableness and proportionality of that course of action and whether other less invasive powers are available to prevent or respond to a terrorist act. Given the impacts of such a declaration on the rights and freedoms of individuals in a prescribed security zone, this requirement ensures that the power is only exercised as absolutely necessary. The bill also imposes requirements on the Australian Federal Police commissioner and the minister to retrospectively notify specified oversight bodies within 72 hours of the declaration of a prescribed security zone and the reasons for making that declaration. That will assist oversight bodies in the performance of their important functions of investigating and reviewing the making of these declarations and the exercise of police powers in those prescribed security zones.

The bill also requires a police officer who has exercised stop and search powers for a terrorism related item to inform the person who has been stopped and searched of their right to make a complaint to an oversight body. Again, that's another protection that's been built in with this reform.

The amendments to the Criminal Code extend the operation of the control order and preventive detention order regimes for a further three years to 7 December 2026 so law enforcement agencies can rely on a control order as a critical disruption measure and a measure of last resort to protect the community from a potential terrorist act. Preventive detention orders are an important measure, albeit an extraordinary one, that enables police to disrupt terrorist activities. This bill will limit the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia and limit the class of persons within the Federal Court of Australia who may be appointed as an issuing authority for preventive detention orders to a superior court judge only. We're making sure that there are as many safeguards as possible to ensure the very judicious use of these orders in very exceptional circumstances. This acknowledges the seriousness and the extraordinary nature of these orders and the significant volume of evidence that must be considered in making these decisions.

The bill also introduces a requirement that the issuing court must consider the combined effect of all the conditions in the control order in addition in to the appropriateness of the individual conditions. That will ensure that the totality of the conditions is appropriate in response to the control order's risk. The bill will allow for the court to impose any condition it considers appropriate as part of that control order in the same way that the court can currently as part of an extended supervision order. This will provide the court with the greatest discretion to tailor control order conditions to mitigate specific risks posed to an individual and their circumstances.

The bill will also allow the AFP or the controlee to apply to a court to vary a control order or an interim control order by consent, including adding new conditions to that order. That will allow greater flexibility in ensuring the control order's conditions remain appropriate to the controlee's circumstances, which may change during the life of the order. The bill would require the court to consider the best interests of the controlee in determining whether the variation is appropriate where the controlee is a minor. This bill will also expand the public reporting requirements in relation to the operation of postsentence audit regimes to improve transparency.

The bill also extends the sunsetting date on section 1124 of the Criminal Code by 12 months to 29 December 2024. This will maintain criminal liability for approximately 296 nondisclosure duties applying to current and former Commonwealth officers until the review of Commonwealth secrecy offences is finalised and considered by the government, including any proposed reforms.

The bill also makes minor consequential amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act to ensure control order conditions are described consistently across the Commonwealth statute book. The bill amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to provide that the decision of an AFP member to consent to the variation of an interim or confirmed control order will not be subject to judicial review as is currently the case in relation to variations of interim control orders under the provisions of the Criminal Code that the bill would repeal and replace.

The final element of this bill comes about as a result of a further recommendation of the PJCIS through that inquiry. That relates to the establishment of a post-entry warrant framework. Currently, the Australian Federal Police have the power to enter a premises without a warrant in exceptional circumstances, and those urgent and exceptional circumstances relate to evidence that a suspect is imminently going to destroy evidence that is relevant in a matter that may be subject to AFP proceedings and arrest and, of course, where there is an imminent risk to the life or safety of a human being.

These amendments establish an administrative scheme which would require a police officer who undertakes a search without a warrant to apply for a post-entry warrant as soon as practicable after exercising or purporting to exercise the powers under section 3UEA of the Crimes Act. This implements the 2021 bipartisan recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security which called for this ex post facto warrant regime to be established for the extraordinary use of those powers that allow the AFP to enter a premises without a warrant in certain circumstances. So these amendments provide an additional critical safeguard for the use of those emergency powers in extraordinary circumstances. Due to the complexity of developing the scheme, those measures weren't able to be included in the original bill when it came before the House, and therefore they are now included in this bill.

In conclusion, the safety and welfare of the Australian people is paramount for the Albanese government. These measures ensure that we have struck the right balance between protecting the Australian people and trying to counter terrorism and acts of violence against Australians in all circumstances while at the same time balancing the civil rights and civil responsibilities of Australians. Thankfully, we have great committees in this place, like the PJCIS, that can advise government, after consultation with the Australian people, about getting that balance right. That's what this bill is all about.

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 rise to speak about my support for the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, subject to the review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I acknowledge the presence of the member for Deakin, who was also chair of that committee and did a magnificent job. I've also been a member. I do have concerns about the bill. I'm not necessarily blaming the government. When I was first elected in 2004 under the Howard government, I raised these concerns. My background is with the Victorian Police counterterrorism unit, so I'm putting a bit of a policing perspective on it. When it comes to preventative detention, it was initially set up, in the first place, for if law enforcement had a person who could potentially be a suspect. They might have been looking at him, and they definitely did not have enough to arrest that person, but they got some intelligence where they believed they'd need to act. The intention was to go and arrest that person and hold them in preventative detention.

That sounds all fine and good, but this is where I have always had my issues. I do acknowledge Christian Porter. When we were backbench members, we actually wrote a paper on this, saying it did need a change. The concern I have is that it doesn't allow law enforcement to ask that person in preventative detention one question. It could be different at the state level, but, when it comes to the Commonwealth level, law enforcement are not allowed to ask a question. Basically, in policing terms, you've got the person on ice in the interview room, and you can't ask them one question. You can't say, 'Hang on; we heard you made a phone call,' or, 'You met with these people,' or, 'We've conducted a search, and we found some goods.' To be honest, once you get into a search warrant stage, you should be having enough to actually interview that person. However, once you realise you have enough evidence, then you can release that person and arrest them under part IC of the Crimes Act. Then you go through the process again of reading them their rights and everything else like that. The concern I have—and I've raised this previously, on numerous occasions, with the AFP and those involved in counterterrorism—is they cannot guarantee me that, if they've got a person in the interview room who may have knowledge, potentially, of a terrorist attack, that person would be allowed to even be asked a question. And, if they wanted to furnish any information, they can't do it. They would need to be released and re-arrested. It's absolutely crazy that that's in place, and that's something I'll continue to speak out about. The danger is: the day I'm proven right, which is going to be an awful day, is when a person is held under preventative detention and they have the knowledge that could have prevented a terrorist attack.

When it comes to control orders—I support control orders too—but it's at a very high threshold. In the initial stages it used to be police taking the request for an order to the Supreme Court. You can imagine the amount of paperwork and effort there is to go to the Supreme Court—and now to the Federal Court—with the information for police to prove that a particular person needs to be under a control order.

So what does a control order do? It can be the more simple aspects where the person may have a curfew—meaning they're not allowed out after certain hours—or they may have to give up their mobile phone or be prevented from using social media. It could be that they're barred from socialising with certain people. It could mean they need to wear a bracelet so police can tell their whereabouts at any time.

I support the control order measure, but something which was raised with me by my former colleagues in Victoria Police counterterrorism is that it has a very high threshold. I'll go to the case of Numan Haider, who was shot outside the Endeavour Hills Police Station when he was meeting two law enforcement officers. They had arranged an interview with Numan Haider, but Numan Haider had previously been going around Dandenong shopping centre with an IS flag. At that time, the only thing that could be asked of him was to leave the shopping centre. Tragically, it ended with him losing his life, but it also caused injuries to police members and long-term anguish. I congratulate former member for Holt Anthony Byrne because he did actually spend a lot of time with the police members.

What Victoria Police recommended to me was what they call the community based order. As I said before, with a control order, it needs to now go to the Federal Court. A community based order could be made a lot easier by simply having it align with something like an intervention order when it comes to a family violence matter, where police or a community member makes an application before a court. Most of the time it potentially could be a young people who is completely misguided and going down the wrong path. They actually go before the court, and the magistrate determines to make an order on the evidence given by Victoria Police or someone else. And it could simply be: 'You're not allowed to associate with these people here. You can't display certain flags.'

I'm not talking about counterterrorism. I'm not just talking about Islamic extremism. I'm also talking about right-wing extremism, anyone who's potentially a danger to the public, a person on a law enforcement watchlist. And can I say that the watchlist has greatly increased over the years. When it comes to control orders, there are only so many control orders that have been issued since 2004. I think there have been 28 orders in total on 21 individuals since 2005, yet we definitely know there are more people on the police watchlist than that.

The magistrate then could make an order, which could be, as I said, who they can associate with and to not use their social media. But, importantly, quite often we find that those involved in terrorism have manipulated the faith they follow to use that as a way of committing awful terrorist attacks. So the order could actually be that the person meets someone of faith, of their religion, so they can get the necessary guidance. They can say, 'In actual fact you're going down completely the wrong path.' Again, my concern about preventative detention is that law enforcement—definitely at the Commonwealth level—needs the ability to interview. That's especially so now, if we look at what's happening in the Middle East. When it comes to control orders, I can say that law enforcement counterterrorism right across this country will be watching a lot of people and trying to keep up with it all—with the social media posts and potential threats. Sadly, we have seen a number of those recently. Bringing in something like a community based order is very important.

In the past, the coalition government had a very strong record on the fight against terror, including an extra $1.3 billion for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I thank them and also the Australian Federal Police, whose annual budget is now more than $1.7 billion. I really thank our law enforcement people, and also their families, because I know that at this time it's very time-consuming for members to be out there, trawling through emails, messages and community tips in order to keep Victorians and, obviously, the Australian people, safe.

The other project which I was involved in in my former role as assistant minister for home affairs was the Building Safer Communities Program funding, where we had invested $315 million in support for 800 projects since 2016. I was very disappointed with the Albanese government back in 2022 when $50 million for safer communities funding was ripped out of that budget. That was on two fronts: one was for high-risk youth, which can be youth who simply fall out of school and go down the path of getting involved in gangs or crime. This was to keep young people at school and, if they had left, to get them back—either to get some education or training—or, if they were incarcerated, to make sure they had mentors while they were in the youth justice system. Basically, when they left, it was to give them someone to support them and give them a hand to go down the right path.

The other front was infrastructure. This was put in place especially for places of worship and faith based organisations. I'll give credit to the former prime minister Scott Morrison for putting this in place after the awful Christchurch terrorist attack in New Zealand. On that occasion it was a right-wing extremist, and this was put in place. It was funding for different communities—whether Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Christian. It didn't matter what your religion was, you put your application in and it was assessed on the threat level. That funding was ripped out of the budget in 2022. It actually took Prime Minister Modi of India to raise it with Prime Minister Albanese when he was in India, who then said, 'We will look at it.'

I thank the government for making $40 million available and another $10 million, but the concern I have is that it has now been 12 months since the May 2022 budget and there have been no security applications or upgrades. The safer communities program also included security guards. I have been to many Jewish communities where, sadly, they have to have security guards on foot. I intervened on behalf of a number of Muslim mosques and also the Islamic Museum of Australia in Thornbury because of my concerns. And there was another hate crime about a mosque up in Canberra and also at some Sikh and Hindu temples. To my great disappointment, when I intervened I was actually taken to the Auditor-General by the Labor Party for intervening and trying to make communities safer. That seems quite bizarre; I did the right thing and I think that even the Auditor-General acknowledged that those interventions were in a number of Liberal-held seats.

It's a very trying time at the moment, which is a good reminder to have stronger counterterrorism laws. One thing I was also very proud of the former government for was that in 2013-14 it allocated $130 million to countering violent extremism programs. I acknowledge Dr Anne Aly, who, prior to being a member of parliament, ran a program called MyHack. She came to my electorate of La Trobe, and we ran that program together, which, member for Cowan, was really important.

The Nationals and the Liberal Party passed legislation to revoke citizenship of dual nationals who engage in terrorism. This includes that those engaged in terrorism-related conduct or fight for declared terrorist organisations outside Australia are sentenced to at least three years for specified terrorist offences. Twenty-two people have lost their Australian citizenship. Of great credit to law enforcement, since September 2014, Australian law enforcement agencies have disrupted 21 major terrorist attacks and plots. There have been 148 people charged, resulting in 75 counterterrorism-related operations around Australia. Fifty-four terrorist offenders are currently behind bars for committing Commonwealth-related terrorism offences. Sadly, that's what's required.

When it comes to extending the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers for another three years, that's just a very commonsense requirement for law enforcement. I remember speaking, years ago, to a psychologist and saying that, as a police force, you have a gut reaction if you think you see something which is not right. The psychologist said: 'No, it's not a gut reaction; you can just read people's behaviour from the way they've acted in the past. If you see certain behavioural traits in your law enforcement, and you've ended up realising they've been up to no good, then in the future your brain switches on when you see someone doing the same thing and you pick them up.' So I support the stop, search and seizure provisions.

I'll leave it there, but, just finally, I thank all our law enforcement agencies for everything they've done in making Australia safe.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Australians, we are fortunate to have a level of peace, security and stability that countless others are not able to experience, so we appreciate that. While no-one here would argue that we don't have problems that need addressing in Australia, it is simply a fact that our vibrant democracy, with its regular elections, peaceful transfers of power and universal participation—almost universal—is the envy of many nations around the world.

It can often be easy to take that stability that we enjoy for granted—to understand it as a permanent fixture of Australian life as a 'given'. But the reality is that upholding and protecting that standard of security requires a constant level of vigilance. Our ability to live our lives to the fullest is directly contingent upon our government's ability to keep us safe and secure. This is particularly true when it comes to preventing acts of terrorism.

Across governments of different parties for many years, Australia's security and law enforcement agencies have worked diligently and effectively to minimise the threat of terrorism in our country. As it stands, Australia's national terrorism threat level is at the level of 'possible', meaning that, while Australia remains a potential terrorist target, there are few violent extremists with the intention to conduct an onshore attack. Despite this, we cannot afford to assume the threat of terrorism as ever really having been gone or dealt with. As time goes on, that threat persists and evolves. More recently, the AFP have stated that nationalist and racist extremism have been spreading across the country, particularly in our rural and regional areas, and also in many urban areas—in cities.

As parliamentarians, it is part of our job, through our lawmaking—through amendments to laws, through the passage of new national security bills—to give our security and law enforcement agencies the tools that they need to succeed at their task of keeping us safe. At the same time, our solemn duty is to ensure the civil liberties of the people of Australia, the people that we represent. The fulfilment of both these obligations is evident in this bill that we are debating here today.

The Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 would amend key counterterrorism provisions that are designed to protect the country from the threat of terrorism. It enshrines into law part of the government's response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's review of AFP powers. These changes come from a set of bipartisan recommendations from the PJCIS some two years ago, ones that were extensively worked through with numerous stakeholders. As part of this bill, the changes enhance the operational effectiveness of the AFP's counterterrorism powers and ensure their continuation. At the same time, they place important guardrails on the exercise of those powers to ensure respect for civil liberties. The result is a bill that will help keep Australians safer.

The Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill will make a number of amendments to the Crimes Act 1914. First, it will extend the operation of the stop, search and seizure powers of the AFP for a further three years, out to 7 December 2026. This will ensure that police remain equipped to prevent and respond to terrorist acts. It will also guarantee that the provisions are reviewed again in the coming years to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose in light of current threats.

The bill also introduces new requirements for the AFP minister to adhere to before declaring a prescribed security zone. They'll be required to consider the reasonableness and proportionality of doing so, and whether other less invasive powers are available to prevent or respond to a terrorist act. The AFP commissioner would also be required to notify the relevant oversight bodies within 72 hours upon declaring a security zone, providing their rationale to those groups in the process. As a result of this proposed change, those oversight bodies will be able to better investigate and review these declarations.

This bill will also require any police officer who has exercised stop and search powers for a terrorism related item to inform the person in question of their right to make a complaint to an oversight body. As a whole, these proposed changes will make the use of this practice both more ethical and more efficient.

The legislation will also make a number of amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995. It would extend the operation of the control order and preventive detention order regimes for a further three years, to 7 December 2026. This change is in the bill becomes law enforcement agencies continue to rely upon the control order regime as a critical disruption measure to protect the community from terrorism. Preventive detention orders are also an important measure, albeit an extraordinary one, of last resort that enables police to disrupt terrorist activities. As a safeguard for the usage of these extraordinary measures, the bill limits the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia and limits those who could be appointed as an issuing authority for preventive detention orders to superior court judges only. This acknowledges the serious and extraordinary nature of these orders, and the significant volume of evidence that must be considered in making these decisions.

The bill introduces a requirement that an issuing court must consider the combined effect of all the conditions in a control order, in addition to the appropriateness of the individual conditions. This will ensure that the totality of the conditions are appropriate in response to the controlee's level of risk, and the bill would allow the court to impose any condition it considers appropriate as part of a control order, in the same way that the court can currently do as part of an extended supervision order. This will provide the court with the greatest discretion to tailor control order conditions to mitigate the specific risk posed by an individual and their circumstances.

In addition, this bill would allow the AFP or the controlee to apply to a court to vary a control order or interim control order by consent, including to add new conditions to the order. This would allow greater flexibility in ensuring that control order conditions remain appropriate if the controlee's circumstances change during the life of the order. Importantly, the bill would require the court to consider the best interests of the controlee in determining whether the variation is appropriate where the controlee is a minor.

This bill would also, in the interests of improving transparency, expand the public reporting requirements in relation to the operation of the post-sentence-order regime, and, in the interests of ensuring the accountability of current and former Commonwealth officers, it extends the sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by 12 months, to 29 December 2024.

As a whole, this bill is part of the Albanese Labor government's broad commitment to ensuring our institutions are always appropriately resourced and given the necessary powers to respond and defend Australia's sovereignty and security. The government will continue to work responsibly and constructively with our security and law enforcement institutions to meet the challenge posed by the threat of terrorism. At the same time, we recognise the importance of striking the right balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring that Australians live without the threat of terrorism looming over their everyday lives. That is a task that, as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I take especially seriously. This bill strikes that balance. It maintains necessary powers for the government to act in the interests of public safety and ensures the promotion of the rule of law and procedural fairness.

Lastly, I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of this chamber who also serve with me on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Their hard work on the inquiry for this bill is duly noted and acknowledged, as is their continued service on the committee. It has helped and will continue to help the security and safety of all Australians.

Debate adjourned.