|
senate vote 2021-11-22#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-12-24 10:33:48
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-11-22.164.1) to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion "*that [the bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6593) be read for a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Greens).
- ### Error in Hansard
- There appears to be a mix up in the Hansard record between this division and [the division](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2021-11-22/4) on the [Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6657). This amendment was about critical infrastructure, which is part of that other bill.
- ### Amendment text
- > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:*
- >
- > *(a) this bill is not supported by key stakeholders in the logistics, technology, and education sectors, among others;*
- >
- > *(b) in the review of this bill undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, numerous stakeholders reported insufficient consultation by the Government with their respective sector or industry and many reported that this bill would result in the imposition of an excessive regulatory burden on their business, including the potential duplication of regulatory systems;*
- >
- > *(c) this bill imposes very serious obligations on entities deemed to be providing critical infrastructure, including:*
- >
- >> *(i) the potential for the takeover of business or operations by Government security agencies, and*
- >>
- >> *(ii) the ability for the Minister to authorise the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to direct an entity to gather information, undertake an action (or direct that an action not be undertaken), or authorise the Australian Signals Directorate to intervene, when a cyber security incident has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur; and*
- >
> *(d) this bill would give the Minister considerable powers under the guise of protecting the security of critical infrastructure".*- > *(d) this bill would give the Minister considerable powers under the guise of protecting the security of critical infrastructure".*
-
-
|
|
senate vote 2021-11-22#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-12-24 10:10:47
|
Title
Bills — Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021; Second Reading- Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Concerns about reach
Description
<p class="speaker">Kristina Keneally</p><p>I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021. This bill responds to recommendations made in 2017 by the former Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Dr James Renwick CSC, SC, and proposes to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to introduce an extended supervision order scheme. This would complement the current suite of powers available to the Australian Federal Police to counter the threat of terrorism.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-11-22.164.1) to the usual [second reading motion](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion "*that [the bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6593) be read for a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Greens).
- ### Amendment text
- > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:*
- >
- > *(a) this bill is not supported by key stakeholders in the logistics, technology, and education sectors, among others;*
- >
- > *(b) in the review of this bill undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, numerous stakeholders reported insufficient consultation by the Government with their respective sector or industry and many reported that this bill would result in the imposition of an excessive regulatory burden on their business, including the potential duplication of regulatory systems;*
- >
- > *(c) this bill imposes very serious obligations on entities deemed to be providing critical infrastructure, including:*
- >
- >> *(i) the potential for the takeover of business or operations by Government security agencies, and*
- >>
- >> *(ii) the ability for the Minister to authorise the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to direct an entity to gather information, undertake an action (or direct that an action not be undertaken), or authorise the Australian Signals Directorate to intervene, when a cyber security incident has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur; and*
- >
- > *(d) this bill would give the Minister considerable powers under the guise of protecting the security of critical infrastructure".*
<p>Currently, when authorities believe that a convicted terrorist offender would continue to pose a risk to the community at the expiry of the offender's custodial sentence, the Commonwealth may apply to the supreme court of a state or territory for an order to continue that offender's detention for up to three years at a time. In order to make a continuing detention order, the court must be satisfied that no less restrictive measure would mitigate the risk to the community of the offender's release. In line with the recommendations by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, this bill proposes an alternative to continuing detention orders—that is, an extended supervision order. This would be a less restrictive option than a continuing detention order. Under an extended supervision order, a convicted terrorist would be released into the community at the end of their sentence but would be required to comply with prohibitions, restrictions or obligations that are, in the court's view, reasonably necessary and appropriate and adapted to protecting the community.</p><p>These powers do introduce a less restrictive option than what is currently in existence, but that is not to diminish the significance of the new powers. As this bill introduces extended supervision orders and such an order could significantly restrict the liberty of an individual who has completed their sentence, this bill was very carefully considered by the opposition.</p><p>The bill also seeks to address what the government has described as the current lack of interoperability between continuing detention orders and control orders in the Criminal Code due to the different courts from which these orders may be sought. Currently, only federal courts can make control orders and only state or territory supreme courts can make continuing detention orders. That means a supreme court cannot make a control order or any other type of post-sentencing order if, in the view of the court, less restrictive measures would be effective in preventing the unacceptable risk. If this bill becomes law, a state or territory supreme court would be able to make an extended supervision order as an alternative to a continuing detention order.</p><p>This bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review. The committee received valuable and considered submissions from experts on law and human rights, as well as from government departments and agencies. Amongst the issues discussed in submissions and hearings were the human rights considerations of extending restrictions to a person's civil liberties after they have served their sentence, the methodology for assessing risk of future offending, the standard of proof required for an extended supervision order and the safeguards and oversight accompanying the powers proposed by the bill.</p><p>The committee made 11 unanimous and bipartisan recommendations. These included requiring that the issuing authority must consider whether a person is already subject to other post-sentence supervision orders, and the cumulative impact of multiple post-sentence orders, including the risk of oppression; an independent review to be provided to the parliament of methodologies used to determine a person's risk of violent extremism and the effectiveness of mandating participation in deradicalisation programs; and provisions for the Commonwealth to bear reasonable costs associated with the offender's legal representation. The committee also recommended stipulations that conditions imposed under an extended supervision order cannot in effect amount to detention, and that these new powers be subject to a statutory review by the committee after the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor conducts his review.</p><p>These are important and necessary recommendations that further demonstrate how seriously the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security takes its role in calibrating the important issues of national security, human rights and procedural fairness, all in a bipartisan way in the national interest. I am pleased, then, both as a member of the intelligence and security committee and as a member of this chamber, to note that the government has advised that they will be accepting the majority of the committee's recommendations. As such, Labor will support this bill, strengthened and improved as it is by the amendments made.</p><p>Labor takes the issues of national security very seriously. Australia's national terrorism threat level was raised to 'probable' in 2014 and has remained there since. 'Probable' means there is a credible threat that people have the capability and intent to conduct terrorist attacks in Australia. In the time since 2014, the threat level has remained constant but the threat itself has transformed, including a now increased threat of ideologically-motivated violent extremism, fuelled largely by a rise in right-wing extremism and, sadly, as evidenced by the mass-casualty terrorist attack committed by an Australian right-wing terrorist in Christchurch. ASIO, the AFP and state law enforcement agencies have all warned that extremists are exploiting the fear and insecurity created by the COVID-19 pandemic, vilifying culturally-and-linguistically-diverse communities, spreading disinformation as a means of recruitment to sow fear and incite violence. The Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Home Affairs told the committee that, of the 86 individuals convicted of Commonwealth terrorism offences, 13 are due to be released over the next few years. With this in mind, it is important that our security and law enforcement agencies have a range of options to monitor the threat posed by terrorism, particularly by convicted terrorists who continue to demonstrate an intent to harm Australians.</p><p>These amendments, the amendments recommended by the committee, are important, which is why it is surprising that it took the government three years to introduce this legislation, as it had been recommended by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor back in 2017. It is also surprising that the Minister for Home Affairs, Ms Karen Andrews, told the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in September that the need for this legislation was greater than ever, when the Morrison-Joyce government only handed its response to the committee's recommendations in late October. It is surprising to learn that the former Attorney-General, Christian Porter, had told the <i>Australian</i> newspaper in 2018 that 'the government intends to introduce legislation to create an extended supervision order scheme as soon as possible'. Perhaps we should not be surprised that 'as soon as possible' for the Morrison-Joyce government is actually in three years time. It is perhaps just another example of a headline and an announcement without the detail, and of acting too little, too late.</p><p>However, the bill is now at the parliament. It has now gone through a review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It has been considered carefully by the committee, and as a member of the community, I acknowledge and thank all committee members for their diligence in conducting the review of this legislation. I acknowledge that the chair, Senator James Paterson, did considerable work on this legislation, particularly given that he only took on the leadership of the committee earlier this year and that a fair amount of the work done on the committee was prior to his taking on responsibility as chair.</p><p>We have arrived at a bipartisan report done in the national interest and focusing on what is important for Australia's national security. Having worked collaboratively and with diligence to review and improve this bill, Labor supports the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021.</p> <p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021. We will not be supporting this bill, because it is highly flawed. I say to the government: come back to this place when you want to do the right thing, and then we can negotiate.</p><p>This parliament has passed well over 70 counterterrorism laws in the last two decades, and often they have simply never been used. This bill proposes to establish a new type of post-sentence order in the Criminal Code to manage the future risk presented by a person who has finished their imprisonment for a terrorism or security offence. This extended supervision order would enable someone to be released into the community subject to conditions on their activities and movements after they have completed their sentence. However, the Criminal Code already contains provisions that permit a state or territory supreme court to make what's called a 'continuing detention order' in relation to the same category of offender. These continuing detention orders require a person convicted of a serious terrorism offence to remain in detention for up to three years after they have completed their sentence.</p><p>I note that the Human Rights Commission has called for the introduction of an extended supervision order regime because it provides a less-restrictive way of managing the risk of serious crime in the community. The Human Rights Commission argues that where a risk is proven to exist and a court considers that the community can be protected through conditions imposed on a person after they're released then this should be preferred instead of continued detention because it's a more proportionate response. It is also consistent with the general principle of the criminal law that an offender should be released from custody once they have done their sentence. However, the continuing detention order regime that we have now will not be repealed. It will continue to exist alongside provisions in this bill. Also, what's worse is that this bill is not at all what the third Independent National Security Legislation Monitor suggested as a better way forward.</p><p>As I mentioned earlier, this parliament has passed over 70 counterterrorism laws in the last 20 years. Many of these laws create really broad, extensive and often overlapping powers. This means that it is becoming more and more probable that the human rights of people are being impacted due to the snowballing nature of all these laws. I urge my fellow senators not to consider this law on its own, but in the broader ecosystem in which it lives. If this bill is passed the new extended supervision order regime would add to this country's already extensive and often unjustified counterterrorism powers. Once given to police and spy agencies these powers do not come back.</p><p>This bill cannot be seen in isolation. It must be seen in the context of the many, many powers that this parliament has already given the police and intelligence agencies of this country. At the very least, the extended supervision order regime should replace the continuing detention order regime. These two extensive powers should not sit side by side. I foreshadow a second reading amendment to reflect this and I ask the support of my fellow senators. There is no need for these two regimes to exist at the same time. If this bill is passed as it is and control orders are not repealed then offenders in New South Wales could be subject to up to four overlapping post-sentence order regimes.</p><p>I say to the government: this bill is not it. Come back to this place, put forward something that at the very least abolishes the continuing detention order regime. Act on the advice from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and then we can negotiate. I say to the government: go do your job, come back to this place when you've got something that is worthy of the Senate to consider. The Australian Greens cannot agree to this bill in its current form. I move:</p><p class="italic">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:</p><p class="italic">(a) this bill is not supported by key stakeholders in the logistics, technology, and education sectors, among others;</p><p class="italic">(b) in the review of this bill undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, numerous stakeholders reported insufficient consultation by the Government with their respective sector or industry and many reported that this bill would result in the imposition of an excessive regulatory burden on their business, including the potential duplication of regulatory systems;</p><p class="italic">(c) this bill imposes very serious obligations on entities deemed to be providing critical infrastructure, including:</p><p class="italic">(i) the potential for the takeover of business or operations by Government security agencies, and</p><p class="italic">(ii) the ability for the Minister to authorise the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to direct an entity to gather information, undertake an action (or direct that an action not be undertaken), or authorise the Australian Signals Directorate to intervene, when a cyber security incident has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur; and</p><p class="italic">(d) this bill would give the Minister considerable powers under the guise of protecting the security of critical infrastructure".</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|