Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (2) to (5) on sheet 5636:

(2)    [Amendment to Senator Troeth’s amendment (2) on sheet 5632]

At the end of paragraph 8(c), add “, at least every 2 years”.

(3)    [Amendment to Senator Troeth’s amendment (2) on sheet 5632]

Paragraph 8(f), after “human rights”, insert “, privacy and other international”.

(4)    [Amendment to Senator Troeth’s amendment (2) on sheet 5632]

After paragraph 8(f), insert:

            (fa)    continue to be necessary; and

            (fb)    are proportional to the extant threat of terrorism; and

(5)    [Amendment to Senator Troeth’s amendment (2) on sheet 5632]

At the end of clause 8, add:

        (2)    The Independent Reviewer also has the following additional functions:

             (a)    investigation of the manner in which relevant law enforcement agencies interpret and implement terrorism laws; and

             (b)    investigation of the use of their powers by relevant law enforcement agencies in interpreting and implementing terrorism law.

        (3)    The Independent Reviewer may, of his or her own motion:

             (a)    make submissions to parliamentary or other committees examining bills making, amending or otherwise affecting terrorism laws; and

             (b)    participate in reviews of terrorism laws, such as reviews by the Council of Australian Governments.

I will speak briefly to each one. Hopefully, they are fairly clear. Amendment (2) goes to the fact that it is not sufficient for the independent reviewer to examine each law only once. We think that they should be revisited. We have suggested provision for a two-year review of each of the pieces of legislation listed in Senator Troeth’s first amendment. Our amendment (3) essentially goes to what I mentioned in earlier debate on this bill—that is, how the amendments proposed by Senator Bob Brown benchmark the operation of the terror laws against Australia’s human rights standards. We have suggested a broader framing of the way that those human rights obligations are drafted.

Amendment (4) goes to the risk that the work of the independent reviewer may simply entrench the terrorism laws as a legitimate part of Australia’s legal landscape. In our view, there are some aspects of these laws which should simply be repealed.

The final amendment to speak to at this point, amendment (5), is that the antiterror laws are not simply words on paper; they are also procedures and practices of authorised agencies and institutions whose powers have been expanded, in some cases, significantly. We have moved to give the independent reviewer explicit permission to participate at his or her discretion in any of these other processes.

Question agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

I move Australian Greens amendment (6) on sheet 5636:

(6)    Clause 9, page 4 (line 12), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

Very briefly, amendment (6) goes to a point that was made several times during the committee inquiry—that the independent reviewer should be truly independent and not be unduly tied too closely to existing organisations. For example, we believe that the reviewer should have regard to investigations conducted by agencies such as ASIO, the AFP, the Ombudsman and so on, without being compelled to suspend activities on the basis of supposed duplication. There may be some benefit to the reviewer’s ability to provide an independent voice or verification of an investigation which may already be underway.

Question agreed to.