Statutes Amendment (Terrorism) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2015.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:25): While this bill is relatively short and simple, it is an important one. This bill extends the operation of two acts that are of great assistance to police when responding to an imminent terrorist threat. The secure environment today is different when compared to when the acts were introduced in 2005. The threat of Al Qaida has been replaced with the threat of Islamic State or Daesh. Islamic State has used the internet and social media to reach out to people in countries, such as Australia, who are at risk of being influenced by a violent and fundamentalist world view. This has made the challenge of responding to Islamic State more difficult, as it is harder to identify those who would cause our community harm.

While the acts have not yet been used in South Australia, the corresponding acts in both New South Wales and Victoria have been used. The powers that these acts provide are intended to be used in very rare circumstances, and thankfully South Australia has so far been spared the terrible events and threats that have affected other states. The fact that these events are rare, and the fact that the use of acts such as these are rare, shows that the powers given to police have not been misused or overutilised.

The concerns about civil liberties, which were raised when these acts were originally introduced, have therefore been shown to be largely unsubstantiated. I commend the bill to the council and hope that it receives a speedy passage through this place to ensure that our police continue to have the tools they need to prevent and respond to threats to the safety of our community. I commend the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:28): I will commence by commenting very briefly on the remarks we have just heard from the Hon. Tung Ngo, where he pointed out that the fears of 10 years ago that these laws would breach civil liberties have turned out to be unfounded. Well, of course unfounded, because the laws have never been used. If the laws had been used, then maybe those fears would not have been unfounded. It is a very hollow argument to say, with laws that have never been used, that therefore the criticism made of those laws was unfounded.

Back to the bill: it extends for another 10 years laws that have never been used. In fact, it is more than just a mirror or repeat of the 2005 legislation, because it actually excludes some of the very few checks and balances that were in the original act. In the original act there is provision for a review, and that review was to take place on the second and fifth anniversaries of the bill, but the bill now before us includes no such review. That would mean, effectively, that these laws would operate (or in our case not operate, because they have not been used) for 15 years without any obligation on the executive to report back to parliament as to their use.

The Greens will be moving, when we get into the committee stage, for review provisions. Members might think that that is a very onerous responsibility to place on the executive, that every two years they must come back to parliament with a one-line report which says, 'Again we have never used these laws,' end of report. That has been the content of the last two reports and I expect will be the content of the next reports. My amendments propose for two-yearly reviews.

In terms of the actual mechanics of the bill, what it does, I do not propose to go into detail of all the different powers that are now being extended to the year 2025, but I did have opportunity to go back through the Hansard debate of 2005 and have a look at what some of the honourable members said back then. There was one contribution which quoted the debate from the House of Lords, because the UK parliament has in similar timeframes to Australia passed similar laws.

One of the quotes came from a Lord Hoffman, whom I have never met, and I do not know anything about him, but Lord Hoffman, in House of Lords, said the following:

Terrorist crime, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community. The real threat to the life of the nation in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:31): I speak today in support of the second reading of this bill. I thank the government for providing a briefing and appreciate the amendments my colleagues the Hon. Andrew McLachlan and the Hon. Mark Parnell have brought to improve this bill. I say at this point that Dignity for Disability will be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's amendments, as we believe review of significant powers such as these is important for accountability, and I would hope we all consider accountability important in this place.

I know the government will say that it is an overly onerous burden for laws that are rarely used, and in fact have never been used, never been invoked in South Australia, as I understand it, but surely that makes them all the more easy to review. Accountability is important when laws such as these could, if used, possibly infringe upon civil liberties to such an extent. With those brief words, we will support the second reading and the amendments of the Hon. Mr Mark Parnell.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:32): I thank honourable members for their contributions to this bill. I will not speak very long at all. I note that there will be debate through the committee stages upon the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendments, and I believe that they are now the only amendments that are going to be pursued, so we will deal with that when we come to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I would indicate the Liberal Party position as we proceed into committee. A number of amendments have been filed, including some from myself. I advise the chamber that I will not be proceeding with those amendments, as we will be supporting the Greens' amendments. The Liberal Party position was that we would be seeking one review in the subsequent 10 years, but on discussion with a variety of members in the chamber we have settled on supporting the Greens' amendments for every two years. We thank honourable members for their time in discussing the way forward in relation to the amendments of this bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

New clause 2A.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 2, after line 8—Before clause 3 insert:

2A—Amendment of section 30—Review of Act

(1) Section 30(1)—after paragraph (b) insert:

(c) the twelfth anniversary of the commencement of this Act; and

(d) the fourteenth anniversary of the commencement of this Act; and

(e) the sixteenth anniversary of the commencement of this Act; and

(f) the eighteenth anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

(2) Section 30—after subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The Minister must, within the 4-month period preceding the expiry of this Act, cause the operation of this Act to be finally reviewed.

I would like to thank the Hon. Andrew McLachlan and the Hon. Kelly Vincent for their indications of support for this very simple amendment which, as I said in my second reading contribution, seeks to incorporate regular reports to parliament on how these laws have or have not been used. In the past, those reports have been very brief because there has been nothing to report on, and I expect and I hope that the subsequent reports, every two years under this amendment, will be similarly brief.

The mechanics are that this bill has been operating for 10 years, and the amendment proposes that, at the end of years 12, 14, 16 and 18, there will be reports to parliament and that, within four months after the act has expired, there will be a final review. I just repeat that this is not an onerous obligation on the executive because, in fact, if these laws are used, then it will be absolutely important for us to find out the circumstances in which they were used and the manner in which they were used. So, I do not think it is an onerous responsibility, and I am grateful that the chamber, on the numbers, appears to be supporting this sensible series of amendments.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will just very briefly put on Hansard the government's view on the amendment. The government will not be supporting the amendment. We understand why the Hon. Mark Parnell is moving the amendment. The Hon. Tung Ngo pointed out that the act has not been invoked, and I know the Hon. Mark Parnell made comments that it would not have infringed civil liberties because you have not had a chance to see the result if the act had been invoked, but I also note that a similar argument could be used.

I note the Hon. Mark Parnell foreshadows the very real likelihood that the reports will just be a very small one-line report that the act has not been used, so one might also argue then: what is the point of having those constant reviews under the act? It is a good thing that the act is not being used. It highlights the fact that there has been no need to invoke it and no-one would wish for the conditions to be present for its deployment to be established.

It is clear that, if the deployment of these powers was to arise, the facts that cause the obviously extraordinary occasion would be the subject of very intense public and government scrutiny. The rapid review of the Martin Place siege by both state and commonwealth governments shows in real life what would happen. If circumstances did arise such that these extraordinary powers were invoked, we have seen what has happened and that has given rise to a very, very quick review of the circumstances of the law surrounding it. For those reasons, the amendment is opposed.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

Amendment carried; new clause thus inserted.

Remaining clauses (3 to 5) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.