James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on behalf of the coalition to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. On 5 August 2024, the Director-General of ASIO returned Australia's national terrorism threat level from 'possible' to 'probable'. The Director-General stated that politically-motivated violence, of which terrorism is an element, had now joined espionage and foreign interference as one of our principal security concerns.

The Director-General's warning was a sobering reminder that we live in precarious times. And, unfortunately, that comes as no surprise. Increasing social division and threats of violence in our communities have escalated dramatically since the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel. We've seen teenagers charged with offences that police allege are motivated by terrorism; a shocking increase in antisemitism; and some individuals even proudly displaying symbols of terrorist organisations on the streets of our cities, in contravention of the prohibited hate-symbols legislation that the parliament passed last year.

This bill is a straightforward proposal to extend for a further three years the declared area offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code Act that is currently scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2024. The bill would also provide that section 119.3 of the Criminal Code Act, the provision under which the minister for foreign affairs can declare an area for the purpose of the offence in section 119.2, ceases to have effect on 7 September 2027.

Introduced by the former coalition government as part of the foreign fighters counter-terrorism legislation amendments in 2014, the declared areas offence fulfils a crucial role in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign terrorist fighters and their associates. The legislation allows for the prosecution of suspected terrorists in circumstances where it is challenging to collect evidence relating to the intention elements of more serious terrorism offences, including in conflict zones. Where there is a declared area—declared by the minister for foreign affairs—it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering these areas, and the offence recognises this by providing targeted exemptions. There have been only two declarations made using these provisions to date: Mosul district in Iraq in 2018 and the al-Raqqa province in Syria in 2014. Four Australians have been charged under the declared area offences.

There was a significant reduction in Australians travelling to Syria and Iraq in that conflict zone in the ISIS period after these declarations were made. The provisions likely discouraged people who might have otherwise considered entering Mosul or al-Raqqa while their respective declarations were in effect and discouraged parents from taking their children into those areas. Declarations have only been used in the context of the Islamic State because, until recently, this has been the only conflict since the commencement of the declared areas framework which warranted the use of that power. However, the framework was designed in such a way that it could be used in response to current and future conflicts. In the wake of the October 7 attacks, we have seen Hizballah continuing to escalate cross-border attacks against Israel while they refuse to withdraw north of the Litani River as required under the unanimous United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was passed in 2006.

As the threat of escalation looms, the coalition has previously called on the government to discourage Australians from going to Lebanon to engage in hostilities by declaring the area in Southern Lebanon to make it an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. I'd like to reiterate that call today. We must not wait for an outbreak in war to take decisive action to deter Australians from travelling to Hizballah strongholds in Southern Lebanon and taking up arms against Israel. The coalition, of course, will always support sensible changes which ensure our legislation is fit for purpose to enable our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to protect Australians from terrorism, which is why we'll be supporting the passage of this bill.

But the passage of these laws is not just something to be done for effect. It is not to be done just for the laws to sit on a shelf and be admired; they are there to be used. If the government is not willing to use powers like these, granted to it by the parliament, then there is a very real risk that Australians will continue to travel to conflict areas including Southern Lebanon. It is highly significant that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in a bipartisan, unanimous report encouraged the government to seek advice from our security agencies about whether or not the region of Southern Lebanon, south of the Litani River, should be a declared area for the purposes of these powers. The government has been very clear for some time in travel advice through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that Australians should not be travelling to Lebanon at all, let alone Southern Lebanon. They have been urging Australians to leave.

Unfortunately, we know based on media reports that there are many Australians in Lebanon who have not followed that advice. Tragically, two Australians have been killed in Southern Lebanon in an Israeli strike against Hizballah. One of those appeared to be a long-term resident of Southern Lebanon, an Australian citizen who was associated with Hizballah, and another appeared to be an innocent Australian visiting family in the region.

We do not want to see anymore Australians killed if conflict does escalate in Southern Lebanon. We do not want to see any further Australians travelling, particularly to Southern Lebanon, where they put themselves at grave risk of being in the crossfire of any conflict between the IDF and Hizballah, which threatens to escalate at any moment. So we again call on the government to very carefully consider whether or not these powers should be used as a means of deterring Australians from travelling and being in this region. There is no good reason to be in Southern Lebanon right now. No Australian should travel there. The Albanese government should use the powers that the parliament is now shortly about to extend for them to discourage Australians from putting their lives at risk and going to that region.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate the Greens won't be supporting this extension of the sunset clause for the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. We've seen—I can't remember how many—occasions where the parliament was rushed to push through counterterrorism legislation and additional security provisions, often in a moment of heightened political anxiety, and then the parliament, often to salve the conscience of rushing through legislation that hadn't properly been considered, attached a sunset clause to it. The problem is that the sun never sets. Again, we have more legislation where the sunset clause was put on and, again, the sun is not setting. In fact, I can't think of a piece of legislation where the sun has ever set. It's a mock restraint on this parliament.

This is legislation that has gone through quite a process. It has gone to, on repeated occasions, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and that committee repeatedly raises very extensive concerns about the human rights implications of legislation such as this. In its most recent report, it said, amongst other things, this:

The committee has previously found that while the provisions likely pursue a legitimate objective (namely, that of seeking to prevent terrorist acts), there were questions whether the provisions were necessary, and, in particular, the measures did not appear to be proportionate, and therefore were likely to be incompatible with a range of human rights …

It goes further to say:

As such, the committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the extension of these provisions is compatible with human rights …

That's from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security completed its review, I think, in 2021, when the sun was about to set, but then, of course, the extension happened. It expressly said there should be an expansion of the exemptions to travel to a declared area for reasons that aren't currently listed in the Criminal Code and there should be as well an ability for a citizen to seek a request to travel and an exemption from the code if they have a legitimate reason to do so. The government ignored that recommendation. They ignored the recommendation of the PJCIS in 2021. The PJCIS, in its most recent review, reiterated that recommendation—recommendation 1, again, called for the government to review the list of legitimate purpose exemptions for entering or remaining in a declared area. Indeed, the review suggested that there should be a regulation-making power to increase the number of legitimate purposes.

At the moment, the legitimate purposes are found in section 119.2(3) of the Criminal Code. They include: providing aid of a humanitarian nature; legal obligations; official duty of an Australian government; official duty for the government of a foreign country, where that duty would not be in violation of the law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory; official duty for the United Nations or the International Committee of the Red Cross; news reporting; and a bona fide visit to a family member. That's the list. There are, of course, other reasons. The world is complex. Human relationships are complex, and family dynamics are complex. There could be any other reason—a large number of other legitimate reasons—why individuals may want to travel to areas even if there is conflict there.

We've just had the opposition say that they would like a declaration in relation to Lebanon while pointing out in the same contribution that there are Australian citizens who are permanent residents in Lebanon—across Lebanon; in the south of Lebanon, in the middle of Lebanon and in the north of Lebanon. Yet the coalition is urging for a declaration to make it a crime to reside in Lebanon. Has there been any consultation between the coalition and the Lebanese diaspora, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Australians who have family connections and often work connections—they might have family who are Australian citizens residing there—in Lebanon? Was there any effort at all to talk to the Lebanese diaspora before these kinds of statements were made by the coalition? I don't think so. It seems to be an ideological attack on Lebanese Australians and the Lebanese-Australian diaspora. It wouldn't be the first time. What we just heard from the coalition then is an echo of what Mr Dutton has said previously about Lebanese-Australian migration to this country. We got another echo of it just then from the coalition.

This legislation seriously impacts some pretty fundamental human rights, including a series of rights recognised by international law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—the right to freedom of movement; the right to equality; the right to non-discrimination; the right to a fair trial; the right to liberty; and the right to life. All of those rights are impacted by this. Yet the government and the coalition together just want to give this discretionary power to the minister. It's been used on only two occasions, and its ongoing utility is seriously in question, and there's the ability for it to be abused.

We just heard the coalition talking about wanting to use it again, without any consultation, to criminalise the Lebanese Australian diaspora, consistent with the previous attack from Mr Dutton on that same community, and wanting these powers to criminalise parts of multicultural Australia. This is why we have human rights. This is why we're meant to be respectful of human rights. This is why the pretence of this parliament to be mindful of human rights, in putting in sunset clauses, is nothing more than pretence. The sun should set on this legislation.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. The Albanese government is committed to protecting the Australian community against the real and evolving threat of terrorism. The declared areas offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, which is currently due to sunset on 7 September 2024, is a part of the Australian government's efforts to stop Australians becoming foreign fighters.

Where an area is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering such an area. The offence recognises this by providing a carefully targeted range of exceptions. Although there are currently no areas declared, these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment. The offence plays a role in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign fighters and their associates. The bill would extend the offence in section 119.2 for three years, to 7 September 2027. A three-year extension is consistent with previous recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, including in its report on the bill. This will be the third time the provision has been extended.

The bill would also provide that section 119.3, the provision under which the Minister for Foreign Affairs can declare an area for the purpose of the offence in section 119.2, ceases to have effect on 7 September 2027. This will align the relevant declaration and offence provisions in the Criminal Code.

The government welcomes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report on the bill and its unanimous recommendation that the bill be passed. The government has agreed or agreed in principle with all recommendations made by the committee. This bill reflects the government's commitment to protecting Australians against the enduring threat of terrorism. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Rather than having a division, I'd ask that the Greens opposition be noted.