Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum relating to one of the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Repeal and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2010

This bill was introduced by the Australian Greens in the 42nd Parliament. The following second reading speech reflects the debate at the time of the bill’s original introduction.

The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Repeal and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2010 will repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and the related Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Legislation Amendment Act 2006. This legislation enables the Federal government to impose a radioactive waste facility on an unwilling Territory government, and on unwilling communities. 

Before the 2004 election, Federal Environment Minister, Senator Campbell provided an ‘absolute categorical assurance’ that a radioactive dump would not be imposed on the Northern Territory.  In July 2005 it was announced, after no consultation with the NT Government or affected traditional owners and communities, that three Department of Defence sites - Harts Range, Fisher’s Ridge and Mt Everard - had been short-listed for assessment.

The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA) 2005 was then pushed through federal parliament, overriding NT laws prohibiting transport and storage of federal nuclear waste. The legislation prevents the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 from having effect during investigation of potential dump sites, and it excluded the Native Title Act 1993 from operating at all. Procedural fairness is also wiped out through suspension of the Judicial Review Act.

Amendments passed in 2006 to the CRWMA override Aboriginal Land Rights Act procedures requiring informed consent from all affected people and groups. Indeed, these changes explicitly stated that site nominations from Land Councils are valid even in the absence of consultation with and consent from traditional owners.

Under the amended process, Muckaty, 120 km north of Tennant Creek, was nominated by the Northern Land Council. The site was added to the short-list of potential sites in September 2007, when former Science Minister Julie Bishop accepted the contentious nomination. This clearly ignored strong, public opposition from a number of traditional owners from the Muckaty Land Trust. 

In response to this announcement, Senator Carr, the Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research stated,

“Today’s announcement is yet the next chapter in the decade-long saga of lies and mismanagement that has become Howard’s waste dump. The Howard Government has tried to impose its waste dump at numerous sites around the country; settling on the Northern Territory because of its ability to steamroll the Territory’s rights and impose the dump against its will. After forcing legislation through Federal Parliament, the Science Minister now has full Ministerial discretion over the siting of a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. Labor believes that Howard’s bullyboy tactics in the Northern Territory are no way to select a nuclear waste dump. Labor is committed to repealing the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act and establishing a consensual process of site selection. Labor’s process will look to agreed scientific grounds for determining suitability. Community consultation and support will be central to our approach.

In April 2007, the Australian Labor Party national conference passed its National Platform, Chapter 5 of which states that a “Federal Labor Government will:

• not proceed with the development of any of the current sites identified by the Howard Government in the Northern Territory, if no contracts have been entered into for those sites.
• repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005.
• establish a process for identifying suitable sites that is scientific, transparent, accountable, fair and allows access to appeal mechanisms.
• identify a suitable site for a radioactive waste dump in accordance with the new process.
• ensure full community consultation in radioactive waste decision-making processes.
• commit to international best practice scientific processes to underpin Australia’s radioactive waste management, including transportation and storage.”

A number of senior Labor Ministers and Senators released media statements prior to the 2007 federal election pledging repeal of the CRWMA if elected. ALP politicians had referred to the legislation as ‘draconian’, ‘sordid’, ‘arrogant’ and ‘profoundly shameful’. In their media statement issued on 6 March 2007 by Senator Carr, Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science and Research, MP Warren Snowdon, Member for Lingiari and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs, and NT Senator Trish Crossin.  This committed Federal Labor to:

• Legislate to restore transparency, accountability and procedural fairness including the right of access to appeal mechanisms in any decisions in relation the siting of any nuclear waste facilities;
• Ensure that any proposal for the siting of a nuclear waste facility on Aboriginal Land in the Northern Territory would adhere to the requirements that exist under the Aboriginal Land Rights, Northern Territory Act (ALRA);
• Restore the balance and, pending contractual obligation, will not proceed with the establishment of a nuclear waste facility on or off Aboriginal land until the rights removed by the Howard government are restored and a proper and agreed site selection process is carried out; and
• Not arbitrarily impose a nuclear waste facility without agreement on any community, anywhere in Australia.

The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 has been ineffective and controversial.  Leaving this legislation in place undermines the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Heritage Protection Act, overrides Aboriginal Land Rights procedures and is a blatant disregard for the express wishes of the Territory government.  Repealing this legislation is implementing an ALP federal election promise and will pave the way for a new approach to the management of Australia’s radioactive waste.

Australia’s radioactive waste is a legacy of decisions taken in the past, specifically in the Menzies era when the government opened a research reactor at Lucas Heights, 31 kms from the heart of Sydney.  Decisions taken then reflect historically specific moments in science and in politics.

Both the scientific and the political methods we have today contrast sharply with those of the Cold War era during which assumptions about the relatively new nuclear technology were simplistic and utopian and nuclear decision-making was cloaked in secrecy, far away from the public eye.

The decisions we take today about Australia’s radioactive waste – how it should be stored, where it should be stored, whether it should be transported and centralised – should reflect the best science we have at our disposal now, as well as the best democratic and transparent processes that governments and citizens can utilise in today’s world. 

Transparency is what Australia has been lacking in its decision-making about radioactive waste management.  Recent attempts to impose an “out of sight, out of mind solution” onto unwilling communities, or communities that have been divided through the provision of payments are not sustainable “solutions” but doomed because they do not enjoy public confidence.

Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill 2010

This bill was introduced by the Australian Greens in the 42nd Parliament. The following second reading speech reflects the debate at the time of the bill’s original introduction.

The Australian Greens are deeply committed to the principle of non-violence.  Non-violence is one of the four interconnecting pillars that are the foundation of our party’s policy and practice; the other three pillars are social justice, economic and ecological sustainability and participatory democracy.  In rejecting violence we condemn the violent crime of terrorism, and view non-violence as a creative, planned, positive force to resolve conflict, believing it to be the best way to transform oppressive power, symbols and behaviour.  Our objective is not just to reduce violence but to address the underlying conflicts and create alternatives to resolve the immediate dynamic and causes, as well as contributing to political change that will build a more sustainable peace over the long term, based on cooperation and justice. We support the right of people to resist unjust laws, unethical corporations and inappropriate development by non-violent direct action and civil disobedience.  In choosing to reject violence, in refusing to emulate violent power or tactics, we fight fire with water and earth, rather than with fire. 

The violent crime of terrorism did not occur for the first time on 11 September 2001 and it will occur again.  This is a grave reality that must be faced by governments who have the responsibility to protect citizens from intimidation and violence.  Likewise, governments also have the responsibility to protect human rights and civil rights.  The Greens do not underestimate the complexity of these responsibilities, however, we are not alone in recognising that in many countries, including our own, the balance between these two responsibilities was skewed by the responses to the events of 11 September 2001. Perceived and real threats to security were used as a lever to curtail human and civil rights and fair trials. 

The newly elected US President has begun the courageous and complex work of reversing the symbolic and actual mistakes made in the name of the “War on Terror”. The Obama Administration is putting effort into devising “clear, defensible and lawful standards…” to govern the treatment of detainees and arguing that the nation should “enlist the power of our most fundamental values” in the effort to keep itself safe.  Australia entered the “War on Terror” very much on the terms set by the United States; we too should rethink and redefine a legitimate response to terrorism and practical ways to address its root causes and consequences.

The laws that were hastily created in Australia following the crimes of 11 September need to be reviewed to determine which merit retention and modernisation.  Mistakes were made; indeed, mistakes were inevitable when the government of the day would not allow the parliament to debate each bill individually, even though the anti-terrorism legislative package constituted some of the most dramatic changes ever made to Australia’s security and legal environment.  Of course mistakes were made when 200 pages of legislation and explanatory memoranda were introduced into the House of Representatives at 8pm and were expected to be debated at 12 noon the next day, leaving entirely inadequate time for review and analysis.  Amendments were made available to the Senate less than 24 hours before the commencement of debate in that Chamber, effectively stripping the parliament of the time necessary to ensure that the laws were adequate to prevent, deter and pursue terrorists while ensuring that any limits on free speech or association struck an acceptable balance.  The parliament was set up to fail, and fail it did.

The purpose of this Bill is to identify those laws and provisions that are so extreme, so repugnant, redundant or otherwise inappropriate, that they should be abolished and don’t even deserve the dignity of being subjected to review by the long-awaited independent reviewer of terrorism laws.   Some of the laws identified in this bill offended our core democratic principles by using definitions and terminology that was simply too vague and broad such as the bizarre “reckless possession of a thing”. Other laws curtailed freedom of expression and association; others compromised the rule of law and the principle of fair and open trials.  Such laws simply need to be removed, to allow the solid criminal laws and procedures to continue doing the job they did before 2001 in prosecuting and penalising anything that can be sensibly described as terrorism. 

While some leaders and commentators deeply fear the accusation of being “soft on terrorism” believing it to be corrosive of their public perception, standing and masculinity, the Greens believe that to maintain these laws in their current form is corrosive of democracy itself and the rule of law upon which it is based.  The benefit of hindsight and the passage of time have revealed the laws identified in this bill as irrational, unused or extreme. 

This Bill seeks to amend, and in some cases repeal

- Provisions in the Criminal Code 1995 related to the definitions relating to terrorism offences, provisions relating to the proscription of ‘terrorist organisations’, offences relating to interaction with ‘terrorist organisations’, ‘reckless possession of a thing’ and the offence of sedition. 

- Provisions in the Crimes Act 1914 relating to detention of terrorism suspects.

- Provisions in the Australian Security Information Organisation Act 1979 relating to the questioning of terrorism suspects and the detention of terrorism suspects; and

- Repeals the National Security Information Act 2004.

AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE

Defining a terrorist act

The Bill repeals the current definition of ‘terrorist act’ at section 100.1 of the Criminal Code and offers an alternative definition, drawing heavily from the definition arrived at by the United Nations Security Council in 2004. Some of the terminology used within the Criminal Code in relation to terrorism offences is either currently undefined or inadequately defined. The current definition of ‘terrorist act’ at section 100.1 of the Criminal Code is considered ‘problematic’ by the Law Council of Australia and a number of national and international review bodies. The Law Council of Australia is of the view that the breadth of the Australian definition in section 100.1 of the criminal code falls outside the internationally accepted definition of terrorist act. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism has taken the view that the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in section 100.1 of the Criminal Code oversteps the Security Council’s characterization of the term.

The current definition of ‘terrorist act’ includes a ‘threat of action’. This has been identified as unsuitable by the June 2006 Report of the Security Legislation Review Committee, (known as the Sheller Report after the Chair of the Committee, Hon Simon Sheller AO QC). The report recommends that the reference to ‘threat of action’ and other references to ‘threat’ be removed from the ‘terrorist act’ definition in section 100.1(1). This position has been supported by the Australian Law Council, who also recommended the removal of ‘threat of action’ and other references to ‘threat’ from the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in section 100.1(1). 

Fostering and supporting a terrorist organisation

What are the actions and intentions that define the fostering and supporting of a terrorist organisation? Under section 102.1 of the Criminal Code, supporting a ‘terrorist organisation’ means; “provide support or resources that would help a terrorist organization engage in preparation for, or planning, assisting or fostering of the doing of a terrorist act”. The Act currently fails to define ‘fostering’; this has been identified as problematic because of the potential for ‘fostering’ to be construed very broadly.  For instance, technically Australian aid organisations providing food and material assistance to people in crisis zones, such as in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and elsewhere could easily fall into the category of fostering, when in fact their work is humanitarian assistance and emergency support. The inability to define fostering highlights its inappropriateness as an offence.

Reckless possession of a thing

‘Thing’ is not defined within section 101.4(1). Parameters for what may be included with the scope of ‘thing’ are needed.  Under the current Act it is possible to be in reckless possession of a thing if somebody passes along a DVD recommending that the contents be viewed, whether one views it or not, or agrees with the content.  Another example that has been discussed in our courts as ‘reckless possession of a thing’ related to a document stored on a computer.  The case was lost as it was possible to show through forensic evidence the absence of an electronic path.  The document had not been accessed, however, what if the person had opened the document to assess its contents?

Most would consider it reasonable that the ‘thing’ in question should be linked with a terrorist act, a thing practically necessary in the material carrying out of a criminal act of violence.  Instead of things actually connected, what we have is the possibility of things that are ideologically connected, things of a literary nature. 

If parameters cannot be provided the provision should be removed. There have been two convictions under section 101.4(1) ‘reckless possession of a thing’ both in relations to the possession of a CD connected with preparation of a terrorist activity. In addition, anyone who saw the ‘thing’, which could be just about any object given the lack of a precise definition, is exposed to the possibility of a Detention or Questioning Warrant. 

Proscribing a terrorist organisation

Division 102 of the Criminal Code currently allows organisations to be designated as ‘terrorist organisations’ by regulation.  This has significant consequences for the organisation, its members and supporters – for example, a person can be imprisoned for being a member or supporter of a ‘terrorist organisation’. The ‘Sheller Report’ recommended that the process of proscription be reformed to meet the requirements of administrative law. The report recommends that the process of proscription by way of regulation made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General, as per section 102.1 of the Criminal Code be retained. However, the process should be made more transparent and should provide organisations, and other persons affected, with notification, unless this is impracticable, that it is proposed to proscribe the organization and with the right to be heard in opposition.

This Bill amends section 102 of the Criminal Code, as per recommendation 4 of the ‘Sheller Report’;

(a) To provide notification, if it is practicable, to a person, or organization affected, when the proscription of an organization is proposed.

(b) To provide the means, and right, for persons and organisations, to be heard in opposition, when proscription is considered. 

(c) To provide for the establishment of an advisory committee, to be appointed to advise the Attorney-General on cases that have been submitted for proscription of an organization.

(d) To require the committee to consist of people who are independent of the process of proscribing terrorist organizations, such as those with expertise in security analysis, public affairs, public administration and legal practice.

(e) To require the role of the committee be publicised,

(f) To allow the committee to consult publicly and to receive submissions from members of the public to assist in their role.

(g) To require that proscribed organizations be widely publicised, with the view, in part, to notify any person connected to the organization of their possible exposure to criminal prosecution.

If the Government of a foreign country has requested the proscription, that should be revealed to all parties. Additionally, provision should be made for merits review of the decision to list an organisation by the AAT. Standing rules for such a review should include protections, so that those coming forward to seek review do not automatically find themselves admitting to criminal offences.

Offences related to interaction with ‘terrorist organisations’

The Criminal Code also contains a number of offences relating to interaction with ‘terrorist organisations’.  It is an offence to:

• direct the activities of a terrorist organisation (s102.2);
• be a member of a terrorist organisation (s102.3);
• recruit a person to join or participate in the activities of a terrorist organisation (s102.4);
• receive or provide training to a terrorist organisation (s102.5);
• receive funds or a make funds available to a terrorist organisation (s102.6);
• provide support or resources that would help a terrorist organisation engage in, plan, assist or foster the doing of a terrorist attack (s102.7); or
• on two or more occasions associate with a member of a terrorist organisation or a person who promotes or directs the activates of a terrorist organisation in circumstances where the association will provide support to the organisation and is intended to help the organisation expand or continue to exist (s102.8).

The Attorney-General’s department has explained the rationale for these offences as follows:

By criminalising activities such as the funding, assisting and directing of a terrorist organisation, proscription contributes to the creation of a hostile operating environment for groups wanting to establish a presence in Australia for either operational or facilitation purposes. It also sends a clear message to Australian citizens that involvement with such organisations, either in Australia or overseas, will not be permitted. Proscription also communicates to the international community that Australia rejects claims to legitimacy by these organisations.

Critics of the offences, including the Law Council of Australia, have argued that the offences are unnecessary and that, “[b]y shifting the focus of criminal liability from a person’s conduct to their associations, the terrorist organisation offences unduly burden freedom of association and are likely to have a disproportionately harsh effect on certain sections of the community who, simply because of their familial, religious or community connections, may be exposed to risk of criminal sanction.”

There has been particularly strong criticism of the ‘association’ offence in section 102.8 of the Criminal Code.  The shortcomings and dangers of this provision have been noted by, amongst others, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, the Sheller Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

The Bill also amends the ‘supporting’ offence (s.102.7).  The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity has argued, and the Sheller Committee accepted, that the reference in s.102.7 to ‘support’ for a terrorist organisation ‘could extend to the publication of views that appear to be favourable to a proscribed organisation and its stated objective.’  This would be an unwarranted interference with freedom of expression.  In the light of these concerns, the Sheller Committee recommended that, “Providing support to a terrorist organisation’, be amended to ensure that the word ‘support’ cannot be construed in any way to extend to the publication of views that appear to be favourable to a proscribed organisation and its stated objective.”

The Bill implements this recommendation by substituting “support” with “material support”  as recommended by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in order to ensure that ‘mere words’ are not caught by the section – an approach supported by the Government.   In order to resolve ambiguity as to what may be deemed as ‘supporting’, an amendment is made to provide that the accused not only offered support, but also intended that the support have the requisite connection (direct or indirect) to a terrorist act, demonstrating proof of a connection between the support and the accused’s intention.  Section 102.7 is considered ineffective because of its complexity. It is argued that this complexity has lead to a failure to convict, making the provision redundant as it exists currently.

Sedition Offences

The Australian Law Reform Commission’s report Fighting Words: A Review of Sedition Laws in Australia, was published in July 2006.  The Commission recommended the repeal of two of the five offences (urging another person to engage in conduct that assists an enemy of Australia and urging another person to engage in conduct that assists an organization or country engaged in armed hostilities with the Australian Defence Force).  It also recommended substantial amendments to the other three offences, including removing any use of the term ‘sedition’.   The Law Council of Australia recommended that these laws should be repealed in their entirety because they are unnecessary, lack clarity and precision, and have a chilling effect on free speech and expression. This Bill seeks to implement the Law Council’s recommendation.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMES ACT

Dead time

Under Commonwealth criminal laws, a person can be arrested if the arresting officer believes on reasonable grounds that:

• the person has committed the offence; and
• arresting the person is necessary because proceeding by way of summons would not achieve one or more of certain purposes specified in the Crimes Act (e.g. ensuring the appearance of a person before the court).

The difference between terrorism offences and ordinary criminal offences emerges after a person has been arrested.  The key differences are:

• once a person has been arrested they can be detained for up to 24 hours, rather than the usual 12; and
• there is a special provision for terrorism offences relating to ‘dead time’, which allows a magistrate or justice of the peace to ‘stop the clock’ where questioning is reasonably suspended or delayed.

The extended periods for detention of terrorism suspects were introduced by the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2004.  As originally introduced, the Bill provided that additional ‘dead time’ was limited to:

Any reasonable period during which the questioning of the person is reasonably suspended or delayed in order to allow the investigating official to obtain information relevant to the investigation from a place outside Australia that is in a different time zone, being a period that does not exceed the amount of the time zone difference.

The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee considered the Bill.  A majority of the Committee recommended that the Bill be supported with some amendments, including an amendment to ensure that the special ‘dead time’ provisions for terrorism offences only be available upon successful application to a judicial officer.  As the Law Council has pointed out, the Government adopted the recommendation to introduce a requirement for judicial approval.  However, the amended clause also removed any cap on the maximum allowable dead time and expanded the grounds on which dead time could be claimed.

The ‘dead time’ provisions were applied in the case of Dr Haneef, who was detained for more than 11 days before he was charged.  The Report of the Inquiry into the Case of Dr Mohamed Haneef (‘the Clark Inquiry’) considered the dead time provisions in some detail.  Justice Clarke stated that, “Perhaps the most obvious deficiency in Part 1C of the Crimes Act is the absence of a cap on, or limit to, the amount of dead time that may be specified as a consequence of the introduction of s. 23CA(8)(m) and therefore the amount of time a person arrested for a terrorism offence can be detained in police custody.”

In relation to the length of time a cap on dead time, Justice Clarke said:

Varying time limits were suggested in submissions. Some argued for 48 hours; others argued for longer—up to 13 days. I do not have expertise to determine the most appropriate time, nor do I hold a strong view about it. Many people told the Inquiry the period of Dr Haneef’s detention (11 or 12 days) was far too long. Others, including police forces, would argue that 48 hours is manifestly inadequate. In the United Kingdom the period is 28 days (subject to judicial oversight), but different considerations apply in Australia

… I do not understand my task as requiring me to put forward a specific recommendation as to the allowable time.

If pressed —and having regard to Dr Haneef’s detention in circumstances where the overseas involvement created time problems generally for the investigation —I would tend to say the cap should be no more than seven days.

Justice Clarke went on to identify other concerns with the ‘dead time’ provisions and to recommend a review of the whole of Part 1C of the Crimes Act 1914 in relation to terrorism offences – a recommendation that the Government has since accepted.

Notwithstanding the fact that Part 1C of the Act is now under review, 23 CA (8)(m) of the Crimes Act should be repealed to remove ‘investigative dead time’ from the calculation of dead time.  Subsection 23CA (8)(m) of the Crimes Act is unique to terrorism offences and provides that the investigation period in terrorism cases does not include any ‘reasonable time’ approved by a magistrate or justice of the peace, during which the questioning of a person is ‘reasonably suspend