George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present five government responses to committee reports. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Joint Parliamentary Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD

Government Response to Committee’s Recommendations

Review of the listing of six terrorist organisations (tabled 7 March 2005)

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that a comprehensive programme, that takes account of relevant community groups, be conducted in relation to any listing of an organisation as a terrorist organisation.

Response:

It is not practicable to undertake broader community consultation in advance of the listing of terrorist organisations. The Government has undertaken a number of steps to ensure awareness of the terrorist organisation offences. Following the listing of an organisation as a terrorist organisation, the Attorney-General issues a media release attaching the Statement of Reasons for the organisation. This information is disseminated to all major media outlets. The Attorney-General’s Department’s National Security website has been improved to give greater access to information and provides a list of all organisations listed as terrorist organisations in Australia, along with the Statement of Reasons for each of those organisations.

The Attorney-General’s Department has produced a ‘Question and Answer’ pamphlet providing information on recent counter-terrorism legislation. This pamphlet is printed in eight different languages and is distributed by officers of the Attorney-General’s Department at forums and seminars they are invited to attend. A pamphlet providing information on the terrorist organisation offences including the financing of terrorism offences is currently being developed by the Government.

Departmental officers have spoken at the following forums in relation to Australia’s counter-terrorism measures:

• 27 February 2006- Departmental staff briefed the Muslim Community Reference Group on the new counter-terrorism laws;
• 19 April 2006- Departmental staff participated in a legislation and policy forum held at Monash University to discuss the counter-terrorism legislation;
• 19 and 20 May 2006 – Departmental staff provided a presentation on the Government’s counter-terrorism legislation at a forum hosted by the Citizens for Democracy in Armidale;
• 28 May 2006- Departmental staff provided a presentation on the Government’s counter-terrorism legislation to a forum hosted by the Young Lawyers Association in Sydney;
• 2 June 2006- Departmental staff addressed the Attorney-General’s Non-Government Organisation Forum on Human Rights;
• 19 July 2006- Departmental staff provided a presentation on the implications of Australia’s new terrorism laws on specific ethnic communities at a conference of The Northern Migrant Resource Centre Inc. in Melbourne; and
• 7 December 2006- Departmental staff provided a presentation on Australia’s counter-terrorism legislation and arrangements at the National Security and Crisis Management Workshop in Sydney.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee does not recommend disallowance of these regulations

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation

Review of the listing of four terrorist organisations (tabled 5 September 2005)

Recommendation 1:

The Committee requests ASIO and the Attorney-General to specifically address each of the six criteria referred to in paragraph 3.2 in all future statements of reasons particularly for new listings.

Response:

The six criteria are among a range of factors ASIO considers when making its preliminary evaluation of whether to put an organisation forward for possible listing as a terrorist organisation.

Section 102.1(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code) requires that the Attorney-General must be satisfied ‘on reasonable grounds that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur) or advocates the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur)’.   The Statement of Reasons is designed to specifically address the legislative requirement for listing a terrorist organisation.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee does not recommend disallowance of these regulations

Response

The Government agrees with the recommendation

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

Government’s Response to Committee’s Recommendations

Review into the re-listing of Al-Qa’ida and Jemaah Islamiyah as terrorist organisations

Tabled 16 October 2006

Recommendation 1:

The Committee renews its request that the Attorney-General and ASIO incorporate the criteria ASIO has provided for determining which organisations should be listed in future statements of reasons.

Response:

The six criteria provided to the Committee by ASIO are internal criteria, used only as a preliminary means of assessing whether an organisation should be considered for possible proscription.

Section 102.1(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code) requires that the Attorney-General must be satisfied ‘on reasonable grounds that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur) or advocates the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur)’.   The format currently employed for the Statement of Reasons is designed to address the legislative requirement for listing a terrorist organisation.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

Government’s Response to Committee’s Recommendations

Review of the re-listing of ASG, JuA, GIA and GSPC

Tabled 26 February 2007

Recommendation 1:

• The Committee renews its request that the Attorney-General and ASIO incorporate the criteria ASIO has provided for determining which organisations should be listed in future statements of reason.
• The Committee requests that the Attorney-General and ASIO provide the Committee with a set of criteria outlining under what circumstances an organisation will not be relisted.

Response:

The six criteria are among a range of factors ASIO considers when making its preliminary evaluation of whether to put an organisation forward for possible listing as a terrorist organisation

Section 102.1(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code) requires that the Attorney-General must be satisfied ‘on reasonable grounds that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur) or advocates the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur)’. The Statement of Reasons is designed to specifically address the legislative requirement for listing a terrorist organisation.

The re-listing of an organisation is considered to be an entirely new listing. Therefore, whenever an organisation is considered for re-listing, the Attorney-General must be satisfied of the legislative requirements set out in section 102.1(2) of the Criminal Code. If the Attorney-General is not reasonably satisfied that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur), or advocates the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur)’, the organisation will not be listed as a terrorist organisation.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee does not recommend the disallowance of the regulations on the four terrorist organisations:

• Abu Sayyaf;
• Jamiat ul-Ansar;
• The Armed Islamic Group; and
• The Salafist Group for Call and Combat.

Response:

The Government agrees with the recommendation.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE’S ROUNDTABLE PUBLIC HEARING:

REVIEW OF THE GRIFFIN LEGACY AMENDMENTS

THE HON JIM LLOYD MP

MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TERRITORIES AND ROADS

July 2007

THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE

Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads in the future provides the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories with the option of inquiring into every Draft Amendment to the National Capital Plan.

Where the committee requests an inquiry, the Draft Amendment under consideration should not be tabled until after the committee completes its inquiry.

Not agreed.

The Resolution of Appointment is the source of authority for the establishment and operations of the Committee. The current Resolution was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on 18 November 2004 and provides that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads (the Minister) may refer draft amendments to the National Capital Plan to the Committee for its consideration. While it has generally been the government’s practice to refer draft amendments to the National Capital Plan to the Committee, the government considers that the Minister should retain the discretion to do so.

Currently, as part of the approval process for draft amendments, the Minister provides a copy of draft amendments to the Committee giving them the opportunity to indicate if they wish to conduct an inquiry into the amendments. In addition to this, the Committee is also given the opportunity to be briefed on draft amendments. In the case of the Griffin Legacy Draft Amendments, the Committee was provided with private briefings throughout the development of the Griffin Legacy.

As part of the draft amendment process, there is usually time for the Committee to conduct inquiries, however there can be matters of national significance which may not allow time for full consideration by the Committee.

Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the National Capital Authority explore options for ensuring that submissions to all the Authority’s consultation processes are made publicly available subject to full approval by the submitter and compliance with relevant privacy principles and advise the committee.

Agreed.

Submissions received during consultation processes will be made publicly available providing approval is obtained by the submitter and all relevant privacy principles are adhered to.

The National Capital Authority (NCA) has already released its Consultation Protocol (the Protocol) which includes the requirement to publicly release submissions. The Protocol also sets out the minimum requirements for consultation which must be carried out:

when the Plan is being made or amended;

when a Development Control Plan (DCP) is being made;

on a development application; and

when the NCA informs community and stakeholders on an annual basis.

The Protocol seeks to formalise, clarify and guide the community and stakeholders to ensure consistency in the application of consultation within the legislative requirements, as outlined in the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management Act 1988 and the National Capital Plan .

The Protocol is available on the NCA’s website here:

http://www.nationalcapital.gov.au/downloads/planning_and_urban_design/consultation_reports/Consultation_Protocol_July2007.pdf

Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that before 29 March 2007 the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads moves to disallow Amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61 so that the National Capital Authority has the opportunity to further refine the amendments taking into account issues raised in the committee’s report.

Not agreed.

After the Committee’s report was tabled, the Minister publicly declined to disallow the Amendments.

The disallowance period ended in the House of Representatives on 22 March 2007.

On 29 March 2007 the Australian Greens Senator, Bob Brown moved to disallow the Amendments in the Senate. The debate and vote on the disallowance motion was held on 10 May 2007 and was not supported by the Senate. The Amendments are now incorporated in the National Capital Plan.