|
senate vote 2014-10-28#4
Edited by
Henare Degan
on
2014-10-29 13:18:25
|
Title
Bills — Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014; in Committee- Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 - In Committee - Items stand as printed
Description
<p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>The question is that the bill stand as printed.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p>- [This vote](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2014-10-28.153.1#g180.1) was about whether a number of items in the bill should remain unamended.
<p>I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and seek leave to move all government amends together.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Minister, we do have the running sheet. I do not know if you want to follow it in that order.</p><p>Mr Chairman, I will follow the running sheet. I think that is a shame because, given there are so many amendments, in view of the limitation of time in the debate I am sorry to say that the Greens denial of leave to move the government's amendments and get them out of the way together means a lot of the amendments will not be able to be debated at all, in all likelihood. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet ZA358.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>I move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet ZA358:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (line 20), omit "ASIO", substitute "The Director-General of Security".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (line 21), omit "it", substitute "the Director-General".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsection 22A(3), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(3) If an Australian travel document of a person has been suspended under subsection (1), another request under subsection (2) relating to the person must not be made unless the grounds for suspicion mentioned in subsection (2) include information first obtained by the Director-General of Security or an officer or employee of ASIO after the end of the suspension.</p><p class="italic">(4) The Director-General of Security may, in writing, delegate his or her power under subsection (2) to a Deputy Director-General of Security (within the meaning of the <i>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979</i>).</p><p class="italic">(5) In exercising power under a delegation, the delegate must comply with any directions of the Director-General of Security.</p><p>Amendments (1) to (3) implement Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommendation 26 by only allowing the director-general of security—or a deputy director-general of security, if delegated the power by the director-general—to make a request for the suspension of an Australian travel document under section 22A of the Passports Act, rather than ASIO as an organisation, as provided for in the bill. It is an amendment, essentially, of a technical character. As I say, it gives effect to PJCIS recommendation 26.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>The opposition was not opposed to dealing with all of the government amendments in one batch. I will confine my comments on pretty much all of those amendments to the general comments that I will make at this stage.</p><p>The government amendments reflect the outcome of the hard work of the Labor members of the intelligence committee. We ensured full scrutiny of this bill and we insisted that the government fully implement the broad and important recommendations that the intelligence committee came to. We will support these amendments, which reflect the conclusions of the committee. It is important that amendments to legislation like this are preceded by rigorous committee consideration.</p><p>Labor's further amendments, which I will deal with when they arrive in the running sheet order, reflect concerns noted in the intelligence committee's report which have not been fully addressed by the government's response to the discrete recommendations. I indicate that the opposition will be supporting all of the government amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wright</p><p>The Australian Greens indicate that these proposed amendments from the government are positive steps forward in limiting how powers can be delegated and putting some outer limits on how long a security assessment can remain in force, but they certainly do not go as far as the Australian Greens' proposed amendments. Again, I will be dealing with those when we come to them on the running sheet.</p><p>The particular concern that we have in relation to the suspension of Australian passports is that the bill seeks to supplement existing travel document cancellation powers by empowering the minister to suspend Australian and foreign travel documents for 14 days at the request of an ASIO officer where that officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person may leave Australia to engage in conduct that might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country and suspension of travel documents is necessary to prevent the person from engaging in the conduct. While the Australian Greens accept that a range of experts, including the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, have agreed that this provision is needed to fill a genuine legislative gap, we are concerned about the way that the new power has been drafted. We have concerns that the proposed new power does not fully conform to the relevant recommendations of the INSLM, which specifically recommended an initial suspension period of 48 hours which could be extended by further suspensions of up to 48 hours at a time for a maximum period of seven days. We believe that the bill, even with the amendment, would still contain insufficient safeguards to prevent ongoing multiple suspensions.</p><p>We consider that the new powers should be amended. I seek the guidance of the chair or the Clerk as to whether or not it will be possible to move the Australian Greens' amendments in this regard, as it is indicated that there is some conflict with the Australian Greens' amendments (5), (6) and (8) on sheet 7594.</p> <p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>Senator Wright, it does not prevent you from moving your amendments. The committee will decide which to agree to.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wright</p><p>I appreciate that the committee will always decide whether to agree with amendments. We will still have an opportunity to move those amendments even if these government amendments are passed—is that correct?</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: That is correct.</p><p>Thank you. I will speak further to this when we get an opportunity to move our amendments.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>I move government amendment (4):</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 25, page 10 (after line 16), after subsection 48A(6), insert:</p><p class="italic">  (6A) Before the end of the following periods, the Minister administering the <i>Australian Federal Police Act 1979</i> must consider whether to revoke a certificate under subsection (4) (if the certificate remains in force):</p><p class="italic">  (a) 12 months after it was issued;</p><p class="italic">  (b) 12 months after that Minister last considered whether to revoke it.</p><p>Government amendment (4) implements recommendation 28 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security by requiring that a certificate issued by the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police Act under section 48A(4) of the Passports Act be reviewed within 12 months of the issuing of that certificate and then every 12 months after it has last been reviewed.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendment (4) be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>I move government amendment (5):</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 26, page 10 (lines 25 to 27), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">26 After subsection 51(1)</p><p class="italic">  Insert:</p><p class="italic">  (1A) The Minister may, in writing, delegate to the Secretary of the Department the Minister's power under subsection 22A(1).</p><p>Government amendment (5) implements recommendation 27 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security by providing that the Minister for Foreign Affairs can only delegate the power to suspend a person's Australian travel documents to the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade rather than delegate that power more broadly, as had been initially provided for in the bill.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendment (5) be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wright</p><p>by leave—I move Greens' amendments (4) to (8) on sheet 7594 together:</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (lines 17 to 19), omit subsection 22A(1), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister may, on request under subsection (2), suspend for up to 48 hours all Australian travel documents that have been issued to a person.</p><p class="italic">  (1A) The Minister may, on request under subsection (2A), extend a suspension under subsection (1) for an additional period of 48 hours.</p><p class="italic">  (1B) The Minister may extend a suspension under subsection (1) more than once, but must not do so if the extension would result in the total length of the suspension being longer than 7 days.</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (line 20), omit "ASIO", substitute "An officer of ASIO".</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (line 21), omit "if it suspects", substitute "if the officer suspects".</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (after line 28), after subsection 22A(2), insert:</p><p class="italic">  (2A) While the Australian travel documents issued to a person are suspended under subsection (1), an officer of ASIO may request the Minister to extend the suspension if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that:</p><p class="italic">  (a) the person may leave Australia to engage in conduct referred to in paragraph (2)(a); and</p><p class="italic">  (b) it is necessary to extend the suspension in order to prevent the person from engaging in the conduct.</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsection 22A(3), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(3) If an Australian travel document of a person has been suspended under subsection (1), an officer of ASIO must not make another request under subsection (2) relating to the person unless the grounds for the officer's suspicion mentioned in subsection (2) include information ASIO obtained after the end of the suspension.</p><p class="italic">Note: Subsection (3) does not prevent a request for a suspension to be extended under subsection (2A) being made during the suspension.</p><p>As I indicated before, there are some concerns about the bill and, indeed, even with the amendments that have just been passed with the bill. These concerns have led the Australian Greens to recommend that the new powers be amended to provide for an initial suspension period of a maximum of 48 hours, which could be extended by further suspensions of up to 48 hours at a time for a maximum period of seven days; to remove the power for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to delegate his or her passport suspension powers; and to make it clear that a request to suspend a travel document must be made by an individual ASIO officer, so as to ensure appropriate oversight of relevant processes by the inspector-general. The expert advice which we have relied upon in supporting the position that we have brought, in terms of moving these amendments, are recommendations that have been made previously by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Law Council of Australia, the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law and the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law.</p><p>I would like to address a question to the Attorney-General in relation to the effects of the bill. The proposed new powers to suspend travel documents have the potential to seriously disrupt people's lives, particularly those who need to travel as a matter of urgency—for example, to visit a dying relative or to secure a business deal. My question is: will there be redress for those who have their travel document suspended under these powers, but are later found not to be a risk to Australia's national security, as the bill does not currently provide for that possibility occurring?</p> <p class="speaker">George Brandis</p><p>Considerations of the kind to which Senator Wright refers to are considerations that would be taken into account in making the decision whether to suspend a person's passport. I should say that this is a power that would not be exercised lightly. It would be exercised having regard to all relevant personal circumstances of the passport holder, including personal circumstances of the kind to which you refer. It will only be made if there is a clear necessity to do so for national security reasons.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>These amendments proposed by the Greens would limit the power for an interim suspension of a passport only 48 hours, as Senator Wright has indicated. They would be able to be extended for additional periods of 48 hours, but no longer than one week. The committee agreed that the interim suspension power was an important and key issue and that the need to improve powers to suspend powers was flagged by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor last year.</p><p>Labor believes the best action we can take to address foreign fighters is to stop Australian citizens ever going to fight, not only because of the damage they may two overseas but also because we know the skills and mindset they may return to Australia with. It is for these reasons that we think these powers need to be improved and we will be opposing amendment (4). With respect to amendments (5) to (8), these would alter the passport suspension process. The same points apply in part to what I have indicated in relation to amendment (4), but we note that these are important concerns being raised by the Greens.</p><p>We are, however, satisfied by the amendments reflected in the Intelligence Committee's recommendations and it is important to mention that those amendments include review of the passport suspension provisions. There is an important opportunity now to highlight, as I did in my second reading contribution, the important progress that has been made in relation to sunset clauses and review in the Intelligence Committee's recommendation. We will be opposing these Greens' amendments as well.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|