James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021. I welcome the opportunity to do so as chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which finalised the report into the proposed bill in September. I'm pleased to be following two of my fellow committee members, our new deputy chair, Senator McAllister and one of our longest-serving members, Senator Fawcett, who have made typically thoughtful contributions to this debate, as they do to the committee. At the outset I want to thank all members of the committee; in particular, our former deputy chair Mr Byrne and the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, who I worked with particularly closely in a bipartisan manner to finalise this report and to reach our unanimous recommendations, along with the other Liberal members of the committee.

In 2014, Australia's national terrorism threat level was raised to where it, unfortunately, remains today, and that is 'probable'. That indicates that there is credible intelligence to suggest that groups and individuals have the capability and the intent to conduct a terrorist attack here in Australia. Unfortunately, we cannot fully eliminate the threat of terrorism here in our own country, nor has any other country around the world been able to do so. Recent attacks in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, allegedly carried out in the name of violent ideologies, serve to remind us of this fact. What we can do is provide our intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies with the best tools, both operational and legislative, to manage the risk and reduce the threat posed to Australians. This bill goes to one of those key legislative tools.

We know that there are convicted terrorist offenders in prison right now whose sentences are soon to expire and, regrettably, many of those people represent an ongoing threat to the community because they are unrepentant in their ideology and have been unwilling, in many cases, to undergo any reform opportunities provided to them in prison, including de-radicalisation programs and other opportunities. There are currently two options available for managing such offenders. The first is a continuing detention order, which Senator Fawcett spoke about at some length. That allows a court to order that a person may remain detained where they pose an unacceptable risk to the community and where that risk cannot be addressed through less restrictive means. The second option is a control order, which allows conditions to be placed on a person after they are released back into the community.

While these tools have proven at times to be effective, there has remained a glaring hole in the suite of powers that our agencies have to manage this risk. The continuing detention order scheme requires—quite rightly, given the significant deprivation of liberty involved in keeping someone in custody after their sentence has been discharged—a very high legal threshold to be met for a court to agree to the ongoing detention of an offender who continues to pose an unacceptable risk. The scheme for control orders, which are currently issued by federal courts, only permits a defined set of conditions to be imposed upon a terrorist offender and it creates—unintentionally—an interoperability issue, whereby the court considering an application for a continuing detention order is not able to impose conditions on the offender where it is not satisfied that a threshold for the continuing detention of the offender is met. This is really important, and this bill will address this. This discrepancy continues to run the risk that some offenders may end up walking free with no ongoing supervision, even when the court has concerns that a person may pose a serious risk to the community.

This bill seeks to address these issues by introducing an extended supervision order scheme which would allow a state or territory supreme court to make an extended supervision order in relation to a convicted, high-risk, terrorist offender, if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released into the community at the end of their sentence. The ESO scheme provides the court with a wider range of measures that can be used to better tailor the response to a particular offender and their individual circumstances. The evidence put to the committee was that those circumstances do differ and that different restrictions or supervisions are appropriate to be tailored to meet the needs of that offender and to meet the needs of the community in being protected from that risk.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security reviewed the proposed legislation, as well as some further government amendments that were provided to us part way through our inquiry, and we're strongly supportive of the introduction of an extended supervision order scheme to manage this ongoing threat of terrorist offenders. The committee received submissions from agencies such as the Australian Federal Police as well as public interest groups such as the Law Council of Australia, which assisted us greatly in our consideration of this bill. I thank particularly those regular submitters to the committee for the way in which they assist us to do our important work.

The AFP advised the committee that the terrorism environment in Australia continues to grow in its complexity:

While the National Threat Level has remained at PROBABLE, ongoing challenges to law enforcement include the demise of the IS territorial caliphate and the need to investigate and prepare for the possible return of foreign fighters; continued investigations into domestic attack planning; the aftermath of the March 2019 Christchurch attack - the first mass-casualty terrorist attack by an Australian right-wing terrorist; the increased threat of right-wing terrorism; the role of technology in propagating violent extremist ideologies; and the heightened need to address the reintegration and continuing risks associated with the release of convicted high risk terrorist offenders completing their head sentence.

The committee noted in particular the evolving nature of the terrorism threat and the increasing complexity associated with people who, unfortunately, are being radicalised online. Quite disturbingly, in evidence to the committee and since in public, this is at a much younger age. Unfortunately, this has continued, and we fear was likely accelerated, during the COVID pandemic.

In considering the evidence provided we recommended what we think are practical and sensible amendments to the bill, including ensuring that issuing authorities consider whether an individual is subject to a post-sentence order under a similar state or territory regime and ensuring that the individual and combined effect of all of those conditions remain both proportionate and necessary.

The government has accepted in full, in part or in principle 10 of the 11 recommendations made by the committee. I want to thank the AFP, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Home Affairs, as well as the other submitters, for their engagement with and contributions to the committee. And I want to thank the government for its constructive response to the committee's recommendations, which it has tried very sincerely to implement as consistently as possible with our report. That's a very important part of what we do.

The PJCIS continues to strongly support the AFP and the important work they do, ensuring that they have the necessary tools to disrupt the activities of those who would seek to harm the Australian community and our way of life, while also ensuring that the appropriate safeguards and oversight mechanisms are in place. These do go hand-in-hand, and the next bill on the agenda which we'll talk about relates to some of those oversight and safeguard mechanisms.

This bill, including the government amendments, which have now been approved by a majority of states and territories in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement on counterterrorism laws, is a really important one to ensure that the community remains safe and protected from this, regrettably, ongoing threat of terrorism. It will ensure that our agencies continue to have the appropriate and necessary powers that they need to combat complex terrorist offenders. Australians can therefore continue to have confidence in the ability of our law enforcement officers to keep them safe. I commend the bill to the Senate.