George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I thank in particular the Australian Labor Party for their support for this measure and Senator Hanson for One Nation's support for the measure. Can I, by the way, clarify a matter that you just raised, Senator Hanson? The national terrorism alert level is 'probable' at the moment. It has been at that level or the equivalent level since September 2014. Last year we changed the nomenclature to make the expression of the alert level a little more clear. It used to be 'high', and 'high' was defined as 'a terrorism event was assessed to be likely'. Now at the same level the descriptor is not 'possible' but 'probable'.

I thank honourable Senators for their contributions to the debate and I will turn in a moment, as time permits, to responding to certain observations that have fallen from some crossbench senators. The bill provides significant measures to address the ongoing terrorism threat in Australia. The measures were developed in response to lessons learned from recent counterterrorism operations, and the bill is informed by a number of independent and parliamentary committee reports, including the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the 2015 bill of the same name, which lapsed when the parliament was dissolved earlier in the year. To give even fuller effect to the recommendations of the PJCIS, I will be moving a government amendment to the bill regarding legal representation for young persons in control order proceedings.

The government has worked closely with the states and territories on these reforms and will continue to do so as part of our comprehensive reform agenda to strengthen Australia's national security and counterterrorism legislation. Importantly, the bill includes measures that will modernise the control order regime, including reducing the minimum age for which a control order can be imposed on a person from 16 years to 14 years or older but introducing a new safeguards regime for minors; creating targeted regimes to facilitate the monitoring of individuals subject to control orders through physical search, telecommunications interception and surveillance device powers; and providing greater protection to sensitive information in control order proceedings.

The bill will also criminalise the advocacy of genocide, which, as I said in the second reading speech, is the incitement to murder an entire population, not an exercise in free speech. These are important measures in preventing terrorism and the spread of extremism in Australia. They are supported by a robust countering violent extremism—or CVE—program which focuses on prevention as our first defence against terrorism. Our program works with communities to address the underlying factors that, unfortunately, make violent extremism appealing to some individuals, particularly young people. It includes adopting new methods to counter the spread and allure of extremist propaganda online and makes sure that our families, communities and institutions like schools and workplaces have the knowledge and tools to respond to radicalisation.

Changing an individual's circumstances, behaviour and feelings is hard. While there is evidence that these programs are working, we know that there will be cases where they will not succeed, and we are in the relatively early days of developing the body of knowledge and understanding of what works in CVE and what works less well. That is why we need to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers that they need to respond when a situation escalates.

The bill also reflects the government's decision to implement in full all of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's recommendations in his report on section 35P of the ASIO Act. The government understands the importance of maintaining public awareness of and confidence in the activities of our security agencies. This and other measures in this bill provide further demonstration of the government's commitment to ensuring that we are achieving the right balance between the needs of national security and the great principles of the rule of law in a free society.

In the time available to me before the adjournment, let me briefly respond to some of the points that I understand have been made from the crossbench. It has been said by Senator McKim that the Greens will oppose the bill because it restricts civil liberties. There is always a trade-off between appropriate protection of the community and the protection of civil liberties. This bill, which is hedged by even more extensive safeguards than we have known before, achieves that balance. 'Civil liberties' cannot be used intelligently as a mantra or a slogan. You have to identify, in the case of each particular measure, why the trade-off is wrong. It is my job both to protect civil liberties and to protect national security, and every day of my life I grapple with the task of ensuring we get the balance right. In performing that task, I am advised not merely by those who advise the government but by the parliament, particularly through its committees, like the PJCIS, the fruit of whose work this bill in large measure is.

Senator McKim, I am told that you said the fact that a 15-year-old attacked Curtis Cheng is no argument for lowering the age of control orders. That is an extraordinary proposition. There have been two lethal terrorist attacks on Australian soil since September 2014. One was by Man Haron Monis at Martin Place, and the other was on Curtis Cheng. One of the two attacks was committed by a 15-year-old. If you do not think that that demonstrates that people younger than the age of 15 are susceptible to radicalisation and the blandishments of those who would entice them down a self-destructive path of violence and, in the case of the late Mr Curtis Cheng, murder, I do not know where you learned your logic from, Senator McKim. One of the two lethal attacks was committed by a 15-year-old, and I can tell you, having in my role as the Attorney to review cases and issue warrants on a regular basis, that it is not at all uncommon—in fact, sadly it is very common—to see at-risk people below the age of 16. To meet your objection, Senator McKim, about the need to balance these measures with appropriate protections of civil liberties, we have introduced a whole new regime, which did not exist in the previous legislation, to protect minors who are the subject of control orders.

I agree with Senator Xenophon's observations that careful scrutiny of agencies and powers is essential. As Senator Xenophon knows, we have that. We have a very elaborate architecture of protection through the parliament; through statutory offices like the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; and through accountability measures within policing and national security agencies themselves. I had the benefit of meeting the Attorney General of Canada this afternoon, and we were discussing the ways in which our respective countries address this very problem. I can assure you, Senator, that Australia leads the world not merely in protecting our people but in protecting our liberties through the careful and thorough architecture of oversight mechanisms and accountability mechanisms which are built into the legislation.

Senator Leyonhjelm, I note your opposition to the changes. It reflects your principled libertarian stand, which I acknowledge and respect. But, nevertheless, might I gently chide you: when one has to deal with the real consequences and the real problem of keeping communities safe, a purist libertarian policy position will not always meet the occasion. It just will not. So, as I said to Senator McKim, what we have striven to do is to be as sparing as possible in invasions of civil liberties and only invade civil liberties to the extent absolutely necessary to protect our community. I look forward to the debate in the committee stage of the bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.