Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021. We will not be supporting this bill, because it is highly flawed. I say to the government: come back to this place when you want to do the right thing, and then we can negotiate.

This parliament has passed well over 70 counterterrorism laws in the last two decades, and often they have simply never been used. This bill proposes to establish a new type of post-sentence order in the Criminal Code to manage the future risk presented by a person who has finished their imprisonment for a terrorism or security offence. This extended supervision order would enable someone to be released into the community subject to conditions on their activities and movements after they have completed their sentence. However, the Criminal Code already contains provisions that permit a state or territory supreme court to make what's called a 'continuing detention order' in relation to the same category of offender. These continuing detention orders require a person convicted of a serious terrorism offence to remain in detention for up to three years after they have completed their sentence.

I note that the Human Rights Commission has called for the introduction of an extended supervision order regime because it provides a less-restrictive way of managing the risk of serious crime in the community. The Human Rights Commission argues that where a risk is proven to exist and a court considers that the community can be protected through conditions imposed on a person after they're released then this should be preferred instead of continued detention because it's a more proportionate response. It is also consistent with the general principle of the criminal law that an offender should be released from custody once they have done their sentence. However, the continuing detention order regime that we have now will not be repealed. It will continue to exist alongside provisions in this bill. Also, what's worse is that this bill is not at all what the third Independent National Security Legislation Monitor suggested as a better way forward.

As I mentioned earlier, this parliament has passed over 70 counterterrorism laws in the last 20 years. Many of these laws create really broad, extensive and often overlapping powers. This means that it is becoming more and more probable that the human rights of people are being impacted due to the snowballing nature of all these laws. I urge my fellow senators not to consider this law on its own, but in the broader ecosystem in which it lives. If this bill is passed the new extended supervision order regime would add to this country's already extensive and often unjustified counterterrorism powers. Once given to police and spy agencies these powers do not come back.

This bill cannot be seen in isolation. It must be seen in the context of the many, many powers that this parliament has already given the police and intelligence agencies of this country. At the very least, the extended supervision order regime should replace the continuing detention order regime. These two extensive powers should not sit side by side. I foreshadow a second reading amendment to reflect this and I ask the support of my fellow senators. There is no need for these two regimes to exist at the same time. If this bill is passed as it is and control orders are not repealed then offenders in New South Wales could be subject to up to four overlapping post-sentence order regimes.

I say to the government: this bill is not it. Come back to this place, put forward something that at the very least abolishes the continuing detention order regime. Act on the advice from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and then we can negotiate. I say to the government: go do your job, come back to this place when you've got something that is worthy of the Senate to consider. The Australian Greens cannot agree to this bill in its current form. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) this bill is not supported by key stakeholders in the logistics, technology, and education sectors, among others;

(b) in the review of this bill undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, numerous stakeholders reported insufficient consultation by the Government with their respective sector or industry and many reported that this bill would result in the imposition of an excessive regulatory burden on their business, including the potential duplication of regulatory systems;

(c) this bill imposes very serious obligations on entities deemed to be providing critical infrastructure, including:

(i) the potential for the takeover of business or operations by Government security agencies, and

(ii) the ability for the Minister to authorise the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to direct an entity to gather information, undertake an action (or direct that an action not be undertaken), or authorise the Australian Signals Directorate to intervene, when a cyber security incident has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur; and

(d) this bill would give the Minister considerable powers under the guise of protecting the security of critical infrastructure".