Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset can I say that I was privileged to hear three very thoughtful contributions to this debate before having the opportunity to speak myself. The first was from Senator Fawcett, who has been a longstanding member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I thought he gave a particularly thoughtful contribution in relation to the practical matters of evidence-gathering and how these need to be considered in the context of the particular case. Then Senator Paterson, who I think is making an outstanding contribution as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, provided some sobering reflections, based on submissions to the inquiry, in relation to Australia's current threat level and exhorted us to ensure that, as senators in this place, we have regard to the tools that are needed by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to combat the terrorist risk on both an operational basis and a legislative basis. In that regard, Senator Paterson made the point about the two options currently available—continuing detention orders and control orders—and the need to have something else, that being the extended supervision order, which provides a bit more flexibility in relation to the controls which could be placed on a particular individual. Senator McLachlan spoke intelligently about the fact that this option provides the judiciary, in particular, with an order, an option, to impose some sort of control that is something less than a continuing detention order. That should really be front of mind as we consider this legislation before the chamber this evening.

Senator McLachlan's contribution to this debate should give the Australian public great comfort that, when matters such as this come before this chamber there are senators such as Senator McLachlan, Senator Paterson, Senator Fawcett and Senator McAllister—who's now deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—who think thoughtfully about these matters and are alive to the inherent tension between ensuring the protection of our community, on the one hand, and being mindful of every citizen's rights and liberties, and the rule of law, on the other.

I want to pick up on a few of the points that Senator McLachlan made. The first is about the process this bill has gone through. I believe vehemently—passionately—that process is extraordinarily important when this place considers legislation. It is so important that public peak groups, like the Law Council of Australia, have the opportunity to make detailed submissions with respect to proposed laws that those submissions are considered soberly and intelligently; that proposed amendments that should be considered and adopted are adopted and that necessary amendments are made; and that governments of whatever persuasion don't simply stand on their dig and refuse to make amendments to draft legislation.

I'm very pleased that Senator McLachlan referred to that process. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security made a number of recommendations to the government. Those recommendations were adopted by the relevant departments and amendments were made to this legislation, which we're considering this evening. In addition to that, as Senator McLachlan referred to, this bill has gone in front of a number of scrutiny committees. I'm a big fan of the Senate scrutiny committee process.

The Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee is where I serve with my good friends Senator Davey and Senator Ciccone, who are with us this evening. They make an outstanding contribution to that committee. I see Senator McAllister's here as well. I gave her a compliment before—I didn't know she was in the chamber when I mentioned she serves as deputy chair on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There's also the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

This legislation has gone in front of both of those scrutiny committees. The security intelligence monitor has considered this matter as well. So that process should give a lot of comfort to the Australian public. Senator McLachlan also made the very intelligent observation that similar issues had been considered in the realm of sex offenders. This is not a case of compounding punishment but one of mitigating future risk and that needs to be considered.

I think the most important duty of any government is to protect our law-abiding citizens, our nation, against threats, be they external or internal. In doing so, the appropriate balance must be sought with respect to also protecting the rights and liberties of everyone residing in this country. I reflected on three recent terrorist attacks and how this bill interrelates with what occurred in those three cases. In the 2019 London Bridge terrorist attack the perpetrator had been serving a 16-year sentence on terrorist charges, had been released on licence and, notwithstanding some of the observation procedures which had been implemented with respect to him, managed to perpetrate a terrorist crime to great consequence and with a number of fatalities. There was the Streatham attack in 2020—another stabbing terrorist attack by someone who had committed a previous terrorism-related offence, was under surveillance but still perpetrated another crime against innocent people. Then there was the Auckland attack on 3 September 2021, closer to home, where eight New Zealanders were stabbed in a crime which was perpetrated by someone who had been released from prison—in this case, in July of 2021—and had been followed for 53 days straight by the security force in New Zealand. They followed him for 53 days straight but still they couldn't prevent that awful attack on those eight people who were stabbed during that awful incident.

This is a real issue, and we in this place would not be discharging our duty if we weren't to soberly consider whether or not, as Senator Paterson put it, our intelligence agencies have all the tools at their disposal to protect Australians. I have looked at the tests, as Senator McLachlan has looked at the tests, to consider whether or not there are appropriate checks and balances. And as Senator McLachlan did, I too have come to the conclusion that those checks and balances are certainly here. This applies only to high-risk terrorist offenders. The Supreme Court of a state or a territory has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a convicted high-risk terrorist offender poses an unacceptable risk of reoffending and that any conditions which are imposed are reasonably appropriate and reasonably necessary to protect the community. I think that's an appropriate test. I don't think I'd be discharging my duty as a senator if I weren't to support the legislation which is before the chamber this evening.

It should also be noted that there are other reforms, other amendments, which are being brought in conjunction with this legislation around the use of search warrants and electronic surveillance. There has been appropriate consideration as to whether or not some of the decisions made under the course of the implementation of this legislation should be subject to judicial review. I think appropriate consideration has been given in that regard and an appropriate conclusion reached in that respect.

In summary, I think the regime in this legislation provides more flexibility. It allows courts to impose conditions which are more specific and more tailored to the idiosyncrasies of a particular case, and I think that's appropriate. Above all, it protects the community and strikes the right balance of protecting the rights and liberties of our citizens. I commend the bill to the chamber.