Senate debates

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

Bills

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014; In Committee

11:48 am

Photo of Penny WrightPenny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is a fair question and I was about to indicate that. I thought I would speak briefly to the consequential amendments so that I will not need to speak about those again, and then I will ask that this amendment, regarding the removal of the offence, be put to the chamber for decision. Then I imagine that Senator Collins will move her further amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I then want to go back to that amendment.

Given that we have now, in a sense, moved in the debate to the other aspects of the amendments that the Greens will be moving, I will not need to speak to those later. I totally understand your concerns about the time. I will speak briefly about those amendments and then I will have nothing more to say on this.

I indicate that the consequential amendments that the Greens will be moving, if the first Greens' amendment is not successful, will add an element of intent to the offence—that is item 1 on sheet 7598—and to expand the definition or broaden the range of legitimate behaviour defences for this offence by expanding the range of legitimate purposes, to allow for the making of a bona fide visit to a friend or personal or business associate, to provide legal advice, or to perform a bona fide business, teaching or research obligation such as archaeology or some kind of research at an educational or teaching institution.

Finally, the Greens' amendment to deal with legitimate purposes in the way a court may interpret those is to create a provision whereby the court would ultimately have discretion—any other purpose that the court determines is legitimate in all the circumstances—which would, in the Greens' view, appropriately give the decision making about what is a serious criminal offence to the judiciary.

Certainly, the Attorney-General has reassured us that this provision would not be used very often, he envisages, and that we really need to trust that this is a sensible provision that will not be misused. Unfortunately, what we know is that, once there is a provision on the books—once legislation is there—governments come and go, attorneys-general and ministers for foreign affairs come and go, and the provision is there, able to be relied upon. Some kind of suggestion that we should just be reassured that it will not be abused is not actually satisfactory for many people because, if it is there, it can be used. That is why, ultimately, the Greens' third amendment suggests that we should allow the judiciary to be able to respond to circumstances which may not be envisaged in the other legitimate purposes that have been set out.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that sections 119.2 and 119.3 in item 110 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Comments

No comments