David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of security and counter terrorism legislation.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this parliament passed a number of important legal reforms in the aftermath of the attacks on the US in September 2001. Members will recall that this first package of legislation was the subject of review by the independent Security Legislation Review Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Simon Sheller AO, QC. The Sheller report was tabled by the Attorney-General on 15 June this year.

On behalf of the committee, I express our gratitude to the Sheller committee. The Sheller report was thorough and has provided a valuable framework for our own inquiry.

Australia is not immune from the influence of terrorist groups and specialist terrorist offences are an important, although not exclusive, tool in Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy.

Terrorism law is essentially a preventative model that allows police to intervene at an earlier stage to avoid potentially catastrophic events. It differs from the traditional criminal justice model in several important ways. For example, the definition of a terrorist act and terrorist organisation are pivotal to Commonwealth offences and expanded intelligence and law enforcement powers. Terrorism law also extends the criminal law by including preparatory offences, capturing conduct before intent has crystallised or any attempt is committed, and some offences relate to a person’s status rather than their actions. This raises important issues of both principle and practice.

It would be improper to canvass the alleged facts in any case currently before the courts. However, this does not prevent the parliament from assessing the quality of legislation and responding to identifiable problems.

For example, there was criticism that the definition of terrorism was overly complex, while others described the definition as the best in the Western world. The existing definition makes an important distinction between political motivated violence and other serious crimes. It also excludes ‘protest’, ‘dissent’ and ‘industrial action’ in order to send an important signal that terrorism laws are not to interfere with freedom of association, assembly or expression.

No matter how heinous a crime may be, we believe it is crucially important to maintain the terrorism law regime as a distinctive area of law. Consequently, we recommend that the motivation for the terrorist act—to advance a political, religious or ideological cause—and the exclusion for protest, dissent and industrial action should remain as part of that definition.

Some offences were said to lack specificity and do not meet the standards necessary to preserve the rule of law. To deal with this problem we have recommended some modest refinements to remove uncertainty and reduce the risk of unintended consequences. Unlike the Sheller committee, we have not recommended repeal of the association offence but we have asked government to re-examine the provision in light of the Sheller committee’s recommendation.

Since 2002 the parliament has passed over 30 pieces of antiterrorist legislation that have strengthened Australia’s ability to respond to terrorist threats. Terrorism law is now much more than a set of core offences in the Criminal Code. For example, the period for questioning terrorist suspects has been extended and there are new procedural rules for terrorism trials; and law enforcement officials may seek control orders and preventative detention orders and the states have introduced a special AA classification system for prisoner that pose a threat to national security.

The government has recognised the importance of keeping terrorism laws under review but to date parliamentary review has been sporadic and fragmented. The picture of how terrorism laws are actually working is incomplete. It is vitally important that we retain public confidence in the new laws and that we have timely and well-informed reporting and analysis.

The committee believes it is time for an integrated approach to monitoring and review of terrorism laws and has recommended the appointment of an independent reviewer, who can set his or her own priorities and report annually to the parliament. We have also recommended an amendment to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to require the committee to examine the annual reports. This will ensure that ongoing democratic accountability is built into the system.

Finally, we are concerned that the evidence continues to point to the negative impacts of antiterrorism laws on the Muslim communities. We acknowledge that the impact upon Arab and Muslim communities is very real and potentially counterproductive. It is incumbent upon us all to ensure that debate about terrorism is rational, open and well informed and does not fan the flames of prejudice and resentment. While terrorism poses a threat, it is also an opportunity to promote democratic ways of expressing dissent, increase participation in public affairs and promote social cohesion.

In recommending this report to the House may I also say a special thankyou to the secretariat of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, who do such a magnificent job.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Fadden wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.