Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report:

Advisory Report on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 July 2019

Introduction

On 12 September 2018, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 (the Bill) was introduced in the House of Representatives.

On 13 September 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, referred the Bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry.

On 13 February 2019, the Committee tabled its report into the Bill. The report made nine recommendations, which are addressed below.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

2.39 The Committee recommends the Government amend the definition of 'aviation security' in proposed section 3UL of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 to specify the scope of activities to which the term applies.

Response — Agreed

The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.

Recommendation 2

2.41 The Committee recommends that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to include a savings provision to ensure the move-on powers do not interfere with the right to peaceful assembly, or give police the ability to use the powers to disrupt or quell a protest that is peaceful and does not disrupt the safe operation of an airport.

Response — Agreed

The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.

Recommendation 3

2.67 The Committee recommends that the Australian Federal Police be required to record the number of occasions on which an identity information direction is issued under proposed section 3UN of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018. Such records—detailing the number of identity check directions issued at each major airport—should be made public on an

annual basis.

Response — Agreed

The Australian Federal Police will update its policies and procedures to capture the number of occasions on which an identity information direction is issued under proposed section 3UN to enable annual reporting.

Recommendation 4

2.95 The Committee recommends that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to include, in certain restricted circumstances, the right to seek urgent or expedited judicial review.

Response — Agreed-in-principle

The Government will amend the Bill to address the intent of this recommendation.

In issuing a move-on direction, a constable or Australian Federal Police protective service officer will be required to use an approved form that includes details to enable the person to contact a Federal Court registry in the State or Territory in which the direction is given. These details could include, for example, a telephone number, address or a website which sets out the contact details for the relevant Federal Court registry.

Providing these contact details will assist the person subject to the move-on direction to apply for judicial review or interlocutory orders in relation to the direction. This information could include, for example, information relating to the process for making an urgent or expedited application for judicial review or interlocutory orders.

Recommendation 5

2.98 The Committee recommends that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to clarify the definition of senior police officer under proposed section 3UO(5)(b) of the Bill.

Res p onse — Agreed

The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.

Recommendation 6

2.100 The Committee recommends that the Australian Federal Police be required

to record the number of occasions on which a move-on direction is issued under proposed section 3UO of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018. Such records—detailing the number of move-on directions issued at each major airport, and the number of move-on directions at each major airport that resulted in an individual missing a flight—should be made public on an annual basis.

Response — Agreed

The Australian Federal Police will update its policies and procedures to capture the number of occasions on which a move-on direction is issued under proposed section 3UO to enable annual reporting.

Recommendation 7

2.102 The Committee recommends that Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to ensure that, in circumstances where a senior police officer provides oral authorisation for a move-on direction, the authorisation is documented in writing as soon as practicable.

Response — Agreed

The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.

Recommendation 8

2.116 The Committee recommends that proposed section 3UR of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to ensure that obligations to provide information if requested apply equally to uniformed and plain clothes constables and Australian Federal Police protective service officers.

Response — Agreed

The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.

Recommendation 9

2.125 The Committee recommends that, subject to the recommendations in this report, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be passed.

Response — Agreed

The Government will update the Bill to implement the recommendations of the Committee.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of the government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is a lacking response from the government, and in particular from the Minister for Home Affairs. The Labor Party and the Liberals have already come together in agreeing to support the temporary exclusion laws subject to the 18 substantive recommendations made by the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. We need to remember that this is a Liberal-dominated committee chaired by Liberal MP Mr Hastie. Given this, the government have always had the final say and control over what the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security are going to be. Labor has respected this fact because the committee has worked in a collegial fashion with the shared aim of improving legislation. This is what we as parliamentarians are expected to do, and it is in fact what we are paid to do.

The government's response shows that of the 18 recommendations made by the bipartisan committee the government has implemented only 16. That's the government's response. I contend, and Labor contends, that that is not the case, but I am going to come back to that in a moment. By the government's own standards, that they have only implemented 16 of the 18 recommendations, they have failed to implement two of the bipartisan committee's recommendations.

This is an unprecedented move by this government. Since 2013, the government has not explicitly rejected a recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The PJCIS has operated for years to achieve bipartisanship on national security legislation. We have worked together, as parliamentarians should, to improve national security legislation. Labor has strived to work in such a fashion since Bob Hawke established the first iteration of the committee to oversee Australia's intelligence services in 1986. The cooperative value of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to reach consensus and improve national security legislation has afforded significant benefit to our national security agencies and to Australians alike. It is a record of which the parliament should be proud.

Given their response, the government has rejected the recommendations of its own members, including in this place Senator Abetz, Senator Fawcett and Senator Stoker. The government's own response says that they have not accepted recommendations from a Liberal-dominated committee. Committee members in this place, Senator Abetz, Senator Fawcett and Senator Stoker, have had their recommendations explicitly rejected by their government in their government's response.

While the government would have you believe that they have implemented 16 of the 18 recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, that is not the case. Instead of agreeing to and implementing all 18 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's substantive recommendations, the government has in fact rejected four of them, only partially implemented another six and ignored one recommendation completely—to produce Solicitor-General's advice that shows and assures Australians that this legislation is constitutionally valid. Further to this, there are now new provisions in this legislation which the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has never considered. The government has opened up a Pandora's box of loose legislative drafting by jeopardising and politicising the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

The revised temporary exclusion order legislation before the parliament is substantially different to the legislation introduced in February, substantially different to the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and substantially different again to the United Kingdom legislation to which Mr Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, so frequently refers. This, in fact, includes new questions about the bill's constitutionality as well as loopholes which could result in a legal challenge. To address these concerns, last night I wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs asking for this legislation to be referred back to the PJCIS to consider these matters. I want these concerns to be addressed, and I believe and Labor believes they can be addressed swiftly. This referral is not a delaying tactic or politicking; it is to ensure that we have a temporary exclusion order regime that works, that keeps Australians safe and that is constitutional.

I'd like to highlight that this legislation, which is due to come before the Senate this week, applies to a small cohort of people overseas. The government has not been forthcoming with the public about the number of people to whom this scheme will apply. I have seen members of the government, including the Liberal chair of the PJCIS, Mr Andrew Hastie, claim that there is an operational imperative to pass this legislation. While I agree and Labor agrees with the intent of this legislation, one has to ask, given that the United Kingdom has had a similar scheme in place since 2015, why the government has not explained why it has taken the Minister for Home Affairs four years to introduce a similar scheme in Australia. Yesterday, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, said that the government was 'working through national security legislation as quickly as possible'. When he was asked why the government has taken four years to replicate the UK scheme here in Australia, he said, 'We are working through this legislation as quickly as possible.' Given the threat of foreign fighters returning to Australia, given that 40 people have already returned to Australia, given that the UK implemented this scheme in 2015, how can Australians look at a four-year delay by this government and say, 'That is as quickly as possible'? Is that actually working to keep Australians safe? Would the Minister for Home Affairs or his representative in this chamber be willing to say he was working as quickly as possible when it has taken them four years to introduce the temporary exclusion order legislation?

As the government has done previously, on many occasions, the government should release the Solicitor-General's advice to assure all Australians of this bill's constitutionality. Labor wants a temporary exclusion order scheme that works, that is constitutional, that keeps Australians safe and that can withstand High Court challenges. Yes, there is an imperative to pass this legislation, but not any legislation and not sloppy legislation; it should be legislation that accords with the bipartisan recommendations of the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, a committee that is dominated by Liberal MPs and chaired by a Liberal MP. This Liberal government should take note of those recommendations and should endorse and accept, as it has done previously since 2013, the recommendations of this bipartisan committee. The government should refer the TEO legislation back to the PJCIS to ensure that we have legislation that works. If they do not, they will be jeopardising and politicising national security legislation. If they do not, they will be voting against the recommendations of Senators Abetz, Fawcett and Stoker. They are choosing to play politics with national security legislation and they are breaking the commitment—the compact, if you will—to a bipartisan approach through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

If the government does not refer this back to the PJCIS, Labor will do in the Senate as we are doing in the House right now: moving amendments to give effect to the full recommendations of this bipartisan committee. We have always supported the intent of the temporary exclusion order legislation. Given this lacking response tabled here today by the government, we want to do what the Minister for Home Affairs has failed to do, which is uphold the bipartisan approach to national security legislation and give effect to the recommendations supported by Liberal members on a Liberal dominated committee—unanimous recommendations to improve national security legislation, supported by both Labor and Liberal parties—to ensure that we have a temporary exclusion order scheme that keeps Australians safe, that is constitutional and that works for the benefit of the Australian community.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.