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

On 5 August 2024, the director-general of ASIO returned Australia's national terrorism threat level from possible to probable. The director-general stated that politically motivated violence, which encompasses terrorism, had joined espionage and foreign interference as our principal security concerns. The director-general's warning was a sobering reminder that we live in precarious times, but unfortunately it comes as no surprise. Social division and threats of violence in our communities have escalated dramatically since 7 October. We have seen teenagers charged with offences that police alleged are motivated by terrorism, the shocking increase in antisemitism, and even people proudly displaying the symbols of terrorist organisations on the streets of our cities.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024 is a straightforward proposal to extend for a further three years the declared areas offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 that is scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2024. The bill would also provide that section 119.3 of the Criminal Code, the provision under which the Minister for Foreign Affairs can declare an area for the purpose of the offence in section 119.2, cease to have effect on 7 September 2027.

Introduced by the former coalition government as part of the foreign fighters counter-terrorism legislation amendments in 2014, the declared areas offence fulfils a crucial role in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign terrorist fighters and their associates, and allows for the prosecution of suspected terrorists in circumstances where it is challenging to collect evidence relating to the intention elements of more-serious terrorism offences, including in conflict zones. Where an area is declared by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering these areas, and the offence recognises this by providing targeted exceptions.

The bill would extend for a further three years the declared areas offence in the Criminal Code that is scheduled to sunset in September 2024. Two declarations using these provisions have been made to date: the Mosul District in Iraq and al-Raqqa province in Syria. Four Australians have been charged under the declared areas offence. There was a significant reduction in the number of Australians travelling to the Syria-Iraq conflict zone after the declarations were made. The provisions likely discourage people who might otherwise have considered entering Mosul and al-Raqqa while the respective declarations were in effect and discourage parents from taking their children into those areas.

Declarations have been used only in the context of the Islamic State, as this has been the only conflict since the commencement of the declared areas framework that warranted the use of the power. But the framework is designed in such a way that it could be used in response to future conflicts. The coalition will always support sensible changes that ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose to enable our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to protect Australians from terrorism, which is why we will be supporting the passage of the bill.

I chaired the Intelligence and Security Committee when this bill was first brought before the parliament, and I'd like to commend the chair, the deputy chair and the committee itself for the way they've very diligently looked again at this legislation and once again put a sunset clause into the bill. This was something that we seriously considered in 2014 and we placed the sunset clause into this legislation. This legislation gives the government and the parliament extraordinary powers, and I'm sure it is the preference of everyone in this place that we wouldn't need such legislation. But the harsh reality and the facts are that we still do, and we've seen that come to the fore again with the comments and statements by the Director-General of Security at ASIO and the lifting of the threat level here in our nation.

I heard both the Chair of the PJCIS and the deputy talk about their consideration of this bill, and one of the things that they have called for, which, obviously, the government will have to take into consideration, is a review of the current legislation before the sunset clause kicks in again in 2027. I think that is a very sensible recommendation by the committee. It gives them time to look at what laws were put in place in 2014 and beyond, remembering that those times were incredibly unusual. Islamic State, obviously, were wreaking havoc in both Iraq and Syria at the time, committing some of the most heinous offences, and, sadly, they were trying to appeal to Australians to go over and join their heinous activities. These laws helped stop that flow, and there was a flow which was occurring. We have to make sure that we can deal with such incidents into the future, and that's why these laws are so important.

I commend the PJCIS for its work on this bill. Obviously, there are other things that we as an opposition are looking for the government to do, and I thought the deputy chair of the committee made a fine intervention in that regard. But, in terms of this bill and making sure that it passes through this place, we support it because it was, in fact, a coalition government that put these measures in place in the first instance.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. I thank the member for Wannon for his comments and, of course, both the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security for their contribution to the report that was just tabled, which is relevant to the bill we're considering.

As the member for Wannon noted, the declared areas provisions essentially give our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and Australia as a whole, the ability to protect Australians, and they do that in a few ways. They have been in place for some time. This bill allows them to continue operating in circumstances where we need that to be the case. It's good that we can consider these things seriously and carefully. It's good we have a committee process that looks at these kinds of legislation open-mindedly and with a preparedness to examine how they were established, how they work and whether or not changes need to be considered. It's good that we can have a sober and serious conversation here about bills like this and what they enable, which is essentially to see that the declared areas provisions continue for another three years.

In terms of how the provisions help to make Australians safe, they operate in a couple of different directions. One of the things about having a declared area put in place is that it stands as a clear signal to the Australian community that that is not a place that Australians should consider going. Essentially it happens where, in some part of the world, you have a listed terrorist organisation engaging in a hostile activity or, as the Director-General of ASIO, Mr Burgess, said, an ungoverned or uncontrolled space where a terrorist organisation is operating. For understandable reasons, those are very dangerous places and we don't want Australians going there.

Declared areas have only been put in place twice, as the member for Wannon noted: once in 2014 in relation to Syria and then again in 2018 in relation to Iraq. So, when we consider things that the member for Wannon properly described as being extraordinary, we should take some comfort and some confidence from the fact that these measures are only being used when it is necessary that they be put in place to keep Australians safe.

There have been a handful of charges made under these provisions and, I believe, only one conviction. But, where these provisions need to be used, it will certainly be to ensure that Australians are safe—and this is the second direction in which these provisions work—from the potential that someone has gone and been in an area that is dominated to some extent by a terrorist organisation, engaged in hostile activity and been involved in the activity or otherwise been affected or influenced by that activity, with the possible outcome that they return to Australia and present a risk to our safety and security.

I know through the committee process that I was also a part of, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, that we had expert civil society organisations come and present to us about the nature of this legislation and the framework that it puts in place. That's legitimate. As the member for Wannon noted, that's how our system of parliamentary democracy, including our parliamentary committee system, works at its best—making sure that we do apply scrutiny to measures that inevitably infringe on the rights of individuals. These measures do limit the ability for an Australian to move freely about the world. We don't want that to be the case in circumstances that are anything other than extraordinary. That's why these measures have been used very sparingly and only in those most extreme circumstances.

The civil society organisations that I talk about, like the Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia, legitimately asked questions about how the framework operates. They have made observations to us about some parallel frameworks. In the case of how the equivalent framework works in the United Kingdom, it was closely based on what Australia put in place. We should take some pride in that, in the sense that we've made a contribution to the way that other countries also protect their citizens, but there have been concerns raised about the way in which the framework operates to acknowledge that there might be some legitimate reasons for an Australian citizen to be in a declared area. The regime already has a set of identified exceptions, but it was brought to the attention of the intelligence and security committee that further consideration could be given as to whether or not those exceptions are as broad and flexible as they might need to be. I understand why the intelligence and security committee has made a recommendation that the government give further consideration to that.

The committee has also made a recommendation about the application of a grace period. As the member for Wannon noted, the way that this particular framework operates is that, when a declaration is made, it literally becomes criminal for an Australian to go to or remain in that area from that time unless they have one of the limited defined reasons or exceptions for being there. The United Kingdom framework does have a grace period that is mindful of the fact that, when you go from not being a declared area to being a declared area overnight, there might be people who happen to be there already or someone who is en route to that place in a way where it's not reasonable for them to understand that it has become declared in a short period of time. So the operation of a grace period is not unworthy of consideration. The recommendation of the committee is that the government give some consideration to that. That has been the way that the UK framework has operated.

In essence, this is a measure that has been in place now for some period of time. It was put in place by the previous government. I know that the member for McPherson—who was in the chair before you, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou—had some involvement in that. We acknowledge that work. It is something that Australians expect the parliament as a whole, the government and non-government members to work on in a collegiate way. That doesn't mean it's uncontested. That doesn't mean it's unexamined or that it goes without a healthy amount of scrutiny and sometimes even disagreement. But it does mean that, as much as possible, particularly in areas like this—because they are so grave and because they can be so fraught—we bring to that conversation the appropriate level of sobriety and reasonableness.

To conclude and to pick up on what the member for Wannon said about the change in the threat level that was announced by the director-general of ASIO recently, the way that we conduct ourselves on these matters and the way that leaders across the community, particularly legislators and parliamentarians, conduct themselves on these issues matters. The way we talk about them matters. When there are circumstances that are fraught and febrile and there is concern and distress in the community, it's our obligation—all of us—to talk about these things in a way that is measured, considerate and compassionate.

I think the contribution that the deputy chair made before was in that vein. He is right to examine these matters and to have views. They won't always be completely in sync with the government of the day. That kind of contestability is essential to making sure that our decisions have the highest integrity. But, nevertheless, he made that contribution with his characteristic reasonableness and evenness of tone. I think we all know, after some of the circumstances that have been characteristic of 2024, that we need more of that. We need to make sure that, if we want peacefulness, harmony and social inclusion, all of our conduct contributes to that. Certainly our conduct in this place—the tone, the substance and the manner, as well as the respect that we have for one another—is a form of leadership that the community wants to see and can thereby replicate in the way that they approach these things. That's in all of our interests.

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

I thank the member for Fremantle for his kind words. I return the serve and thank him and the member for Bruce, in particular, and also the chair for their service on the committee. It is arguably, I believe, the most important committee in this parliament. It's been a privilege and an honour for me to serve alongside those three gentlemen, and I wish them well in their future endeavours.

We all know, and often say, that Australia is facing the most geopolitically unstable period since 1945. There doesn't seem to be any difference of opinion on that issue, and, in fact, that goes for the entire world. We've seen war in Europe. We are seeing a war in the Middle East. We have domestic conflicts and revolutions across the Americas, Africa and the Indo-Pacific. Australia remains totally unequipped to contend with the grave national security threats posed by those who would do us harm. Just this month the Director-General of Security raised Australia's terror threat level from possible to probable, highlighting the growing lack of social cohesion, the growing extremism and both physical and digital vulnerabilities.

The government, intelligence, Defence and law enforcement agencies, who are tasked with protecting Australians, must be equipped with the tools that they need. This legislation, building on the coalition's strong record in government, provides just that. The declared areas provisions we're debating today were inserted into the Criminal Code in 2014, through the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014. At the time of the passage of that legislation, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens and various Independents and crossbenchers did not immediately come to the table. The Greens, in particular, were ardent in their opposition. These are the same Greens who have joined the rally cries of Hamas terrorists today, the same Greens who have encouraged the vandalism of war memorials, the same Greens who have made it their policy to break down Australia's borders and international alliances, the same Greens who have fuelled deplorable antisemitism and hate and the same Greens that this Labor government want to empower with seats on the PJCIS and on the proposed defence joint standing committee—in what is quickly emerging as a radical coalition of the left.

The provisions in this legislation have been used to declare areas twice in both 2014 and 2018. The areas declared were al-Raqqa Province in Syria and the Mosul district in Ninewa Province in Iraq. In Syria, a civil war devolved into a conglomeration of proxy conflicts, tribalistic terror and a fight between Assad and the rebels desperately clambering for power. In Iraq, the Islamic State terror group sought to destabilise democratic progress in Iraq and across the Middle East. Those travelling to these locations outside of legitimate and official humanitarian, diplomatic or military reasons had no reason to travel to these locations. Despite conflict in Ukraine and across the Middle East, as well as increasing tensions and armed conflict across Africa, Asia and South America, there are no current declared areas listed under this legislation.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has reviewed and reported on the declared areas provisions on three occasions—in 2018, 2021 and now 2024. On the first two occasions the committee recommended that the provisions be extended. This year a third review tabled this week—in fact, just now—recommended that the bill be passed with a review before the powers sunset in 2027. I think all members would agree that that sunsetting is vitally important. As the member for Wannon indicated, no-one wants to see these powers go for a minute longer than they are necessary. The aim of these reviews would be to clarify and strengthen the safeguards, protocols and penalties applicable to those powers which can be exercised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The declared area offence was designed to fill a crucial gap in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign terrorist fighters, to deter Australians from travelling to these hostile locations and to break the chain of radicalisation. The Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, highlighted the need for a declared area provision in this legislation when he said:

If we look at our security environment and what's happening globally, we continue to keep a close eye on developments in Afghanistan, further into the Middle East and in Africa. We could well see the need to have the government call on this in terms of our toolkit to respond to the terrorist threat in the future. It's a very real possibility.

This legislation is essential for the peace and prosperity of our country. It prevents Australian lives being lost at home and abroad and it prevents one avenue for radicalisation and organised crime. But this legislation is only effective if a competent government exercises its powers appropriately, effectively and swiftly. We must see these powers exercised as a matter of urgency as the conflict in the Middle East continues to escalate.

In particular, the case is mounting to list southern Lebanon as a declared area. When I talk about southern Lebanon, I'm talking about the demilitarised zone south of the Litani River, consistent with the UN Security Council's Resolution 1701. During a PJCIS hearing on 20 May, I asked our security agencies whether it was time to proscribe areas like southern Lebanon under these powers and whether any consideration had been given to this proposal. ASIO advised at the time that, while no formal requests for advice had been received on any particular areas it would consider worthy of listing, there were general conversations occurring within government.

As we speak right now, the security situation deteriorates in the north of Israel, and there is a very real risk of a conflagration in Israel and in Lebanon. I would implore the government to look at designating the southern Lebanon area I mentioned earlier as a declared area. Southern Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, an organisation which is funded by Iran. They have made very clear what their intentions are, and those intentions are to attack Israel and wipe Israel off the face of the map. When they talk about 'from the river to the sea', that is exactly what they mean: wiping Israel off the face of the map and killing every Israeli in Israel. It would be very prudent and timely for this government to consider a declaration in southern Lebanon to prevent Australians from travelling to that area to take up arms, and I would implore the government to look very seriously at making that declaration and doing it yesterday—as soon as possible. As tensions continue to rise, particularly in the north of Israel and southern Lebanon, it is appropriate to make that declaration, and I urge the government to do it now.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lawmakers need to think very carefully before restricting the human rights and freedom of movement of our citizens, and I don't think building in restrictions on a 'just in case' basis, with no specific reasoning or circumstance in mind, stacks up. As security agencies have recently announced, we may be in an environment of heightened terrorist threat, but the Director-General of ASIO himself, Mike Burgess, says the most likely perpetrator is someone acting alone and with no planning. Just yesterday, on Insiders on the ABC, he said: 'Remember the most likely terrorist attack in this country right now is an individual that will go to violence with little or no warning and actually little or no planning. It could just be a reaction to language they've heard from someone, including a politician.' This legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024, will not prevent that kind of attack. I am far from naive or blind to the geopolitical risks affecting the world and the associated risks to Australia. However, governments should not get attached to this kind of restrictive law.

In June 2014, Islamic State, a truly ghastly and gruesome militant terrorist group, took advantage of the Middle East's geopolitical instability and launched a coordinated surprise offensive into Syria and Iraq. Raqqa and Mosul quickly fell. Islamic State captured about a third of Syria and 40 per cent of Iraq. On cue, US led coalition air strikes began. Three years later, Islamic State had lost 95 per cent of the territory it had gained, and the risk it posed to Australia likely diminished correspondingly.

As one assesses the merits of a bill or law, the historical context in which it was drafted must be taken into account. When the Abbott government introduced the declared areas provisions in the wake of this surprise offensive, Australia was facing an urgent security threat of ideologically motivated returning foreign fighters. But history has moved on. Islamic State is no longer the target of this legislation. The declared areas provisions have become an anachronism in a changed geopolitical landscape. Their basis of legitimacy is reduced and is no longer proportionate to the threat we face today—no identified enemy and no particular urgent threat. If there is a specific threat to justify this legislation, the government should articulate it.

In the decade following the enactment of declared areas powers into law, only four Australians have been charged and two area declarations made—al-Raqqa Province in Syria in 2014 and Mosul district in Iraq in 2018—both in relation to the now defeated Islamic State. The low number of prohibited areas declared using these powers reflect their judicious use, but their underlying potential to be abused or applied excessively remains. I note and accept the government's claim that the declared areas powers led to a reduction in Australians travelling overseas to fight for militant groups and a reduction in those returning. This law may have been effective and legitimate for that specific circumstance, but today not a single area declaration has been enforced for almost five years. The government argues, though, that retaining these powers is essential for ensuring rapid response time in the case of a hypothetical future conflict. Yet, if there is such a circumstance, legislation could be rapidly enacted. Indeed, in the term of this parliament, we have seen legislation tabled and passed within hours on occasion. In principle, therefore, I question whether a hypothetical is sufficient to justify laws that enable a minister to curtail the rights and freedoms of Australians at the stroke of a pen.

Based on the human rights framework of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in April this year, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights reported that the provisions were 'likely to be incompatible with multiple human rights'. While national security can be used as a basis for curtailing civic freedoms, it is questionable whether an unspecified hypothetical future scenario is sufficient to meet this standard. The committee concluded that the declared areas provisions are potentially inconsistent with six human rights: right to equality and non-discrimination, right to a fair trial, freedom of movement, liberty, life and security of person.

The ICCPR guidance considers limitation on human rights to be justifiable where a 'legitimate objective' is substantiated. What legitimate objective is the basis on which the government proposes we vote on extending these powers today? The government owes the Australian people more rigorous substantiation than it has provided—an answer to why retaining the power for a minister to abruptly restrict our freedoms continues to be necessary. The potential for conflict is not a good enough one. Principle is important in politics, and, in principle, this standard has not been met.

Due to the sunset provisions of the 44th Parliament voted to enshrine in this law, the 45th, 46th and now the 47th have each been presented with the question of whether to extend the declared areas sunset clause another three years down the track. The member for Wannon and the member for Fisher have both articulated the need for a sunset clause. So I ask: What is our long-term strategy with this law? Do each of the major parties intend to simply continue to roll over that sunset clause into perpetuity? If the Minister for Foreign Affairs insists these powers are proportionate to our current threat environment, despite the noted views of the human rights committee and the Australian Human Rights Commission, then they should be tabled and established into permanency. The powers should be rightly subjected to parliamentary and public scrutiny to determine whether they are indeed legitimate and proportionate. Our current apparently bipartisan strategy of kicking the can down the road and waiting until it's a different government's problem amounts to poor legislative practice. In a parliamentary sitting week, in which we're also debating legislation that would strengthen the Australian Human Rights Commission, it occurs to me that we should probably start taking their advice seriously too.

With the above in mind, I also recognise the volatile and unpredictable security situation evolving in the Middle East. As the events following 7 October have shown, overseas conflict has the very real potential to aggravate tensions in Australian society. I have immense respect for the competence of our intelligent professionals and the advice they provide to government, particularly in cases where they judge it necessary to raise our national terrorism threat level, but, if there's a specific threat requiring legislative action, I would be more than prepared to consider it and give it the attention it deserves. In the 48th Parliament, the government must demonstrate greater integrity over this law that we are debating today, which, no doubt, will pass this and the other chamber. The Australian people must be given greater substantiation than we've been presented with. If the government has something to offer on that front, I would be more than willing to hear it.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ibn Khaldun, the eminent Arabian historian, said in 1365 that he was very surprised that Jerusalem was still predominantly, overwhelmingly, Christian, and that Palestine also was overwhelmingly Christian. How come it's not Christian now? What happened? Constantinople was the centre of the Orthodox Christian religion. About a third of Christians in the world, at the time, were under the auspices of the Christian church in Constantinople. It was the centre, the capital, of Christianity, outside of Rome. Why is it now a Muslim city? We must ask ourselves.

There is an historical constant here. These people come in, they take over and they completely destroy the faith and the values of the people that were there. Anyone can read the history books, if you doubt me for one moment. These people, for 600 or 700 years, took 50,000 Christian slaves a year. If you doubt me, I will say that, if you knew your history, you would know that Peter the Great and Suleiman the Magnificent were the predominant figures—the two outstanding figures—of the Dark Ages. Peter the Great's wife had been a Muslim Christian slave. Suleiman the Magnificent's main wife—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy is speaking on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you return to the bill.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the terrorists that we are talking about are people of the Muslim faith in the Middle East. I make the point that it's 'Middle East', in inverted commas, because I really think all the people from Indonesia that I know are more Christian than the supposed Christians here in Australia. They are the complete opposite of what we're seeing from the Middle East. I feel sorry for the Middle Eastern people, but they have a constant paradigm in history.

Suleiman the Magnificent had a lot of wives, but he had one wife that he was really in love with. The wives of both these men were Christian slaves. They were very great love affairs. They were very great stories of romance. If you doubt that they were taking 50,000 a year, then how come both the two outstanding people of the Middle Ages were Christian slaves that the Muslims had taken? I emphasise that the Indonesians have been wonderful neighbours to us. They've exemplified far more Christianity than we Australians have.

We're not talking about a diaspora here. The Jews were very prominent throughout many countries in Europe, which led to the terrible pogroms, hatred and everything else that occurred under the Nazis and others. But that was a diaspora; they had been forced out and they spread out. Now, they were persecuted to a point. You say, 'They took this land off them!' What the hell would you have done if you were a Jew in Europe at the start of the 1940s? I'll tell you what: as an Australian I don't hold my head up very high here, because the ship of shame carrying 700 Jewish refugees landed in England and they said, 'We don't want you because you're Jews.' They landed in Brazil and they said, 'We don't want you because you're Jews.' They landed in America and they said, 'We don't want you because you're Jews.' They landed in the Caribbean and they said, 'We don't want you because you're Jews.' To the shame of this nation—an empty country—we said, 'We don't want you because you're Jews.' There were some fairly ugly comments by the prime ministers at the time.

Where were they to go? They went to their traditional historic homeland. They returned there. There were a lot of Jews in what we now call Israel, at the time. They weren't anywhere near the predominant group of people there but they had to go somewhere, and that's where they ended up. The British had to send their convicts somewhere. That's how we started.

I want to move on. Today we have the Middle East, and I use the term 'Middle East' because Muslims from other parts, like Indonesia, have been very wonderful people, in my opinion. I can give you a lot of evidence to that effect. From the Middle East—Tony Burke has been made immigration minister, in one of the most extraordinary decisions I have ever seen in 50 years in politics. To put a person in as immigration minister who has 25 per cent of his electorate Muslim—they're 25 per cent of his electorate and they put him as immigration minister. I can tell you, this country doesn't want any immigrants now—54,000 families can't find a home in this country, yet the government continues to bring in half a million people.

They keep emphasising migration. Migration is only a small part of the people coming into this country. The really big slice are the student visas. I ran into a family two years ago—they were very nice people. I said, 'Did you only recently come to Australia?' and they said, 'Yes, we've been here only three months.' I said, 'What was your visa?' They said, 'It was a student visa I came in on.' I said, 'How about your whole family?' They said, 'If you come in on a student visa, you can bring your family in.' Don't talk about migration and humanitarian people coming to Australia—let's have a look at the student visas. Do they go home? No, they don't. Get in a taxi in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne and ask the bloke what subject he's doing at university. The last time I asked, he was doing hospitality—one unit of hospitality. He looked to me to be about 50 years of age.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy may wish to return to the bill. The member for Kennedy may wish to direct his—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker Vamvakinou, with all due respect, the bill is about bringing people from the Middle East to this country. It's an area of the world that is fraught with murderous, internecine warfare, continuously. And at this very moment, Madam Speaker, for your information, there is a war going on in Yemen with massive losses of life. There is a war going on in Nigeria with unannounced but massive losses of life. There is war going on in Saudi Arabia, still, with massive losses of life. That is what this bill is about. You're bringing those people who, for whatever reasons, seem to have a particular propensity to kill each other when there's no-one else around for them to kill. You're bringing those people as a group into this country.

Let us be positive and say, 'Surely, if you're going to bring people to this country, they should be people that we can integrate into our community in this country.' So it would be quite reasonable that you would seek people that come from a democracy—India's a democracy—and people that have rule of law—India has rule of law. Christianity—you may not believe in God or anything like that, or any Christian rituals, but as a person belonging to a Western democracy, you have this basic belief that you have to look after your fellow man and you have to make the world a better place. That is the Christian message. It's very simple; it's very clear cut, and a hell of a lot of people ascribe to it even though they don't believe in God or a deity. I would say the minimum criteria would be you'd have democracy, rule of law, industrial awards, Christianity and egalitarian traditions. The Philippines meets all of those criteria and Poland meets all of those criteria.

But they're not the people you're bringing in! You're bringing in people that have no democracy, no rule of law, no industrial awards, no Christianity and no egalitarian traditions! And you've just made the person who is at the mercy of this migrant group—25 per cent of his electorate is Muslim—the immigration minister. The poor beggar, I'd hate to be him coming through to the next election. I tell you what, I wouldn't like to be running for the ALP in the next election when the Australian people get a full understanding of what has happened here. There needs to be some explanation as to why the person put in charge of immigration has got an electorate which is 25 per cent Muslim.

Let me just go back to the Muslim thing again. There are two families in North Queensland who are close friends of mine. One of them was elected a very popular representative on the Cairns Regional Council. He's a lovely bloke, a fabulous bloke, and is loved by everyone. You'd say, 'That bloke's a real Christian,' not in the religious sense of the word but in the sense that he's a real good bloke. He'd look after you if you were in trouble. A lot of people come to this country and they integrate into this country. My own home town had many Afghan people who were camel drivers and became part of the diaspora that we had in rural Australia.

I'll conclude on these notes. Gaza was an area that was set aside after the 1967 Six-Day War. As a result of that war, a lot of Muslim people ended up in that area, which Israel occupied. It was part of Egypt, and Israel occupied it. Egypt invaded Israel. Egypt caused the war—Egypt were totally responsible for the war and they lost the war. The Israelis found themselves in occupation of Gaza, which they didn't want. In 2005 the Israelis walked out of Gaza, and Hamas took control.

Why did Hamas send people across the border to murder people in a peace-loving little country next door? They haven't invaded any other countries. Why would you go in and murder 1,200 people? That's what they do! They murdered 2,000 in the Twin Towers in America. How many times do we have to have mass murders before we start deciding there's a bit of a problem here? They picked the fight. It's like if people in Berlin had complained about their treatment by the Russians—you picked the fight, you did the damage and you terrified and destroyed and tortured these people. In this case, unlike the Germans, they publicised it! They publicised their atrocities! There are few instances in human history where people run around publicising their atrocities. In this case they did.

This nation is on the cusp of a change. There are over a million of those people in this country now. If you want to bring people in from other places, I'm your man. Nothing against the religion—because the people I've dealt with mostly in my life from Indonesia and those areas have been wonderful people. I couldn't speak more highly of them. I come from a town that had a very significant old Afghan population who integrated and became part of our community.

But the people that are here now are living in definable areas, and it appears to me they have no interest in moving out. You have the Sikh people who come to Australia, and they immediately move out and they will turn a block of open rubbish country into a prolific farm that contributes to the Australian economy. They don't get any other people to do the work; they do the work themselves. They make this a richer country.

Please, if you've got a choice—and we have a choice! We're a self-governing country; we've got a choice—surely you choose the people that will integrate harmoniously and contribute to the wealth of this nation. (Time expired)

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

I want to start my speech today by drawing our country's attention to the fact that the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024 impacts the rights of Australian citizens, and it impacts the rights of all Australian citizens. For this reason, I think that the bill requires scrutiny and deserves true scrutiny. As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I want to particularly draw attention to the human rights concerns raised by the committee in relation to this bill and previous bills dealing with declared areas provisions.

Unlike what we just heard from the member for Kennedy, this is not about people entering our country. This is about people leaving our country and travelling to various parts around the world. Ultimately, the view of the committee when we reviewed this legislation was set out in the Human rights scrutiny report: report 3 of 2024. It found: 'It has not been demonstrated that the extension of these provisions is compatible with human rights.' The human rights raised by the committee previously in relation to these provisions remain a concern—namely, that the declared areas provisions do not contain sufficient safeguards or flexibility to constitute a proportionate limit on rights and that questions regarding the necessity of the measure have not been addressed.

To be clear, I recognise—and the committee absolutely recognised—that this bill aims to achieve an important objective, that being the protection of Australia's national security interests. The declared areas provisions provide the minister with the power to declare certain areas of a foreign country where a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in a hostile activity, making it an offence to enter or stay in the area without a legitimate reason. The intention of those powers is to enable the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign terrorist fighters and their associates. These provisions are ultimately intended to deter Australians, including families, from travelling to dangerous conflict areas where listed terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activities and to protect against the possibility of terrorist attacks in Australia. And, to be clear, I wholeheartedly support those intentions and that ambition. However, while this is a legitimate and vital objective, particularly in light of our recently upgraded terrorism threat level, it should not come at the cost of fundamental human rights. We in this place must critically consider whether the measures outlined are proportionate to the stated objective.

The declared area offence provisions engage and limit a number of human rights, including the rights to equality, nondiscrimination, a fair trial, freedom of movement and liberty. When this bill was originally passed in 2014, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, Independents and various legal, human rights and other interest groups expressed concern with the new offence of entering declared areas. In particular, concerns were raised regarding the limitation on the freedom of movement and the onus of the evidential burden being placed on the defendant through the use of the exceptions to the offence.

Human rights issues were again raised by various interest groups during the 2021 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security review in relation to the declared areas provisions. Again, these concerns questioned the need for the provisions and raised the possible human rights limitations on freedom of movement and otherwise legitimate activities. I don't believe these concerns have been adequately addressed.

In its most recent report, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reiterated again the concerns that it had raised regarding human rights in relation to the previous bills dealing with the declared areas provisions and drew these again to the attention of the Attorney-General and the wider parliament. In summarising its concerns, the committee stated:

The committee has previously found that while the provisions likely pursue a legitimate objective (namely, that of seeking to prevent terrorist acts), there were questions whether the provisions were necessary, and, in particular, the measures did not appear to be proportionate, and therefore were likely to be incompatible with a range of human rights … As such, the committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the extension of these provisions is compatible with human rights.

I also want to note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, in its 2021 review of the provisions, recommended that the Criminal Code Act 1995 be amended to allow Australian citizens to request an exemption to travel to a declared area for reasons not listed in the Criminal Code but which are not otherwise illegitimate under Australian law. Ultimately, the government then did not support the exception that was recommended. Thus there may be a number of innocent reasons that a person may want to enter or remain in a declared area that currently would not bring a person within the scope of the legitimate purpose defence.

Despite attempts by the parliamentary joint committee, despite the findings of the inquiry and despite the submissions that were received from others engaged across the human rights movement, the government has not amended this legislation. And while, in times when our nation is facing fear, it is understandable that we will move quickly to adopt legislation that we feel protects us, surely at a time when we have the opportunity to seriously review something and assess whether we got it right the first time is the moment we should be ensuring that we fix any mistakes that may have previously been built into the legislation.

As highlighted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, there is currently a clear lack of sufficient safeguards or flexibility to constitute a proportionate limit on rights as seen in this legislation. For that reason, and as a member of the committee, I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. The Albanese government is committed to protecting the Australian community against the real and evolving threat of terrorism. The declared areas offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, which is currently due to sunset on 7 September 2024, is part of the Australian government's efforts to stop Australians becoming foreign fighters. Where an area is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason.

A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering such an area. The offence recognises this by providing a carefully targeted range of exceptions. Although there are currently no areas declared, these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment. The offence plays a role in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign fighters and their associates.

The bill would extend the offence in section 119.2 for three years to 7 September 2027. A three-year extension reflects the continued appropriateness of the provisions and is consistent with previous recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, including in its report on the bill. This will be the third time the provision has been extended. The bill would also provide that section 119.3, the provision under which that Minister for Foreign Affairs can declare an area for the purpose of the offence in section 119.2, also ceases to have an effect on 7 September 2027. This will align the relevant declaration and offence provisions in the criminal code.

The government welcomes the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the bill and its unanimous recommendation that the bill be passed. The committee made three recommendations for the government to consider following passage of the bill and before the next sunsetting of the provisions in 2027. The first is that the government consider reviewing the list of legitimate purpose exceptions for entering or remaining in a declared area in subsection 119.2(3) of the Criminal Code. This includes considering whether any additional exceptions should be prescribed by regulations. The government agrees with this recommendation. The government will consider reviewing the list of legitimate-purpose exceptions and will consult agencies and other relevant stakeholders.

The second recommendation is:

… that … the Government consider an additional exception to the offence of entering, or remaining in, an area that has been declared under section 119.3 of the Criminal Code. The exception would apply where:

The government agrees with this recommendation. The government will consider the proposed additional exception to the offence of entering or remaining in a declared area and will consult agencies and other relevant stakeholders.

The third recommendation is:

… that … the Government consider reviewing the existing safeguards on the Minister for Foreign Affairs' discretion to declare an area under section 119.3 of the Criminal Code. This would include reviewing the Minister's protocol and the list of factors to be taken into consideration by the Minister for Foreign Affairs before declaring an area.

The government agrees with this recommendation. The government will consider reviewing the safeguards that apply to the Minister for Foreign Affairs' discretion to declare an area and will consult agencies and other relevant stakeholders. The government accepts these three recommendations and will consider these matters following passage of the bill and before the next sunsetting of the provisions in 2027.

The committee also recommended:

… that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor review Division 119 of the Criminal Code, with particular attention to the declared areas provisions and their ongoing necessity within the broader counter-terrorism legislative framework.

The committee recommended that the monitor report its findings in relation to the declared areas offence by 7 January 2027. The government agrees in principle with this recommendation. The government is supportive of this recommendation, noting that the monitor can initiate its own review into this matter.

Finally, the committee recommended that the bill be passed. The government accepts this recommendation. The Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which is currently before the parliament, would empower the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review these provisions before they sunset, ensuring that due consideration is given to the continued utility of the provisions. This bill reflects the government's commitment to protecting Australians against the enduring threat of terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.