HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-09-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Terror Suspect Detention) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2017.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:23): I rise to contribute in respect of the Statutes Amendment (Terror Suspect Detention) Bill. This is a bill that was introduced in June by the Attorney-General subsequent to a meeting between the Premier and the Attorney-General and Minister for Police when they publicly announced the government's intention to amend the bail and parole laws. Members would be aware that there has been considerable activity in this space since, in more recent times, the Man Haron Monis incident in the Lindt Cafe on 15 December 2014.

I recall, subsequent to the inquiries into that siege and the tragic loss of life of two hostages and, ultimately, Man Haron Monis killing himself, that the state government here took the view that it was not necessary for us to look at tightening our bail laws. In fact, I have a letter from the Attorney-General suggesting the same, that we are different from New South Wales and so on. Nevertheless, the situation has progressed. There have been incidents around the world which have culminated in the Prime Minister calling on state attorneys, after a number of meetings, to review their parole decisions on terror-linked cases.

It is fair to say that the upgrading has followed in this bill. Currently, under section 10A of the Bail Act, there are a number of circumstances when a presumption of bail is reversed, including manslaughter and unlawful killing using a car, blackmail, causing a bushfire, serious and organised crime and threat to a public officer. This list has been added to whenever there has been a controversy surrounding a particular case, e.g., causing death by dangerous driving subsequent to the Eugene McGee case or the announcement by premier Rann that he would get tough on people who caused a bushfire, even though we already had life imprisonment penalties for arson.

In any event, on our side of the house we have been concerned about what appears to be fairly slow attention to the urgency of some of these matters. I will give one example. Minister Bettison is the Minister for Social Inclusion. Under an agreement at the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council back in 2015, there was a general agreement to deal with and advance programs to counter violent extremism. The radicalisation of youth was one of the areas identified as important, particularly in South Australia where that appears to be one of our greatest areas of risk.

I noticed just today that the new police minister has indicated that he is going to introduce laws to increase penalties for the possession of what has been broadly described in the media as extremist material and for detonating homemade bombs and apparently some other things. Obviously, we have yet to see the legislation on that announcement. The radicalisation of South Australians, particularly young people, is an area of concern that has been around for some time. Minister Bettison was given a responsibility, and $135,000 from the commonwealth, to appoint a task force and a 'responsible person'. It took until about August the following year.

Several times, I asked in parliament whether this person had been appointed, and we had briefings with SAPOL and the like. This year, in about April or May, we finally sought a meeting with the responsible person, who was a youth officer, as I recall Ms Bettison's description. This was the person, as I say, the commonwealth was funding to assist in reducing the risk of radicalisation in youth. They were to go to schools and presumably community organisations and the like, help people identify if there was potentially a problem within those organisations, be alert and report behaviour of concern to the appropriate agencies.

I suppose they were also to give those communities guidance and assistance as to how they might manage someone who was showing some sign of resistance to activity in the community, becoming isolated and making statements that could be interpreted as showing an association with a group or idea that would cause some threat or risk. That is great, but then we found that, within the short time before we were due to meet this person, they had resigned. We still have not had any announcement from the Minister for Social Inclusion that that person has even been replaced.

Whilst I see that the new minister (minister Picton) has announced that they want to get on with dealing with legal sanctions against people distributing extremist material, this is exactly the area of radicalisation that this youth officer—who until around April or May this year was in situ, but has resigned—is supposed to be doing.

So it is a real concern. In this space, South Australia, in recent history, has not been the victim of death or destruction by terrorist acts—great. We have not had our water poisoned. We have not had Adelaide Oval bombed, etc., but obviously there is now a national agreement, as we are still on high alert, that we actually follow through with what we have agreed to do. In South Australia, we agreed—apparently via the Minister for Social Inclusion—to attend to this issue of trying to counter terrorist activity in the radicalisation space.

I just say to the Attorney that while you were apparently not given that job—this was given to another minister—if we are going to go down the legal reform in respect of bail and parole, and the reversal of onuses, that is fine. However, we need to ensure that other agencies in the state government are also doing what they are supposed to be doing. Accordingly, at the moment we do not have a lot of confidence that appropriate attention is being given to this, other than trying to get headlines about what you say they are going to do, or what the new minister says he is going to do.

From the police briefings we had, they confirmed that they were not in the space of training for antiradicalisation. That is fine; I totally understand that, as they have a different realm. We appreciate the briefings they have provided to us. We do not need to go into detail about those, suffice to say that they are our force of first responsibility, as in every other state. Obviously, in light of there being any attack or civilian risk, they will be our task force of first response. I hope we do not have to need them, but I am confident that if we do they will do whatever they can to ensure that our community is safe.

However, as I have said, I am not so confident that the other agencies are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing. In any event, in respect of this legislation, we support these initiatives. Two reports were tabled today in respect of some investigation into criminal intelligence. I have not had a chance to read them yet. I am not sure whether they are covered in relation to any of the sharing of intelligence which is proposed under this bill, but that is another area where I think there has been general COAG agreement on the exchange of information, obviously with the same end of ensuring that we are protected against the risk of terrorist activity. With that, we support the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (20:33): Can I again thank the deputy leader for her indication of support for this bill. In the time that she was speaking, I was able to make some very brief inquiries with minister Bettison. Those inquiries have revealed that the individual about whom the deputy leader spoke has been replaced. I am advised that the replacement occurred as of 11 September this year, so—

Ms Chapman: I'll finally get a briefing, will I?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, that is a matter the deputy leader can take up with the minister, but I just thought I would let you know. Because you are being so positive about things, I am trying to be as helpful as I can, and the minister has given me that information.

I just make another comment on this as well. South Australia, like I am sure all other territory and state jurisdictions in this country, is very keen to ensure that to the greatest degree possible we cooperate with the commonwealth government in relation to projects that are directed towards improving our collective safety as members of the Australian community.

There have been a few meetings between heads of government that have been discussing this topic. I think the deputy leader referred to that in her remarks. The deputy leader might recall from media reports in the not too distant past that the Prime Minister has actually convened another one of these meetings, which I believe is occurring on 6 October, if I am not mistaken. This is very much a matter that is in the mind of all of the political entities within this country.

These amendments which I will be seeking to move when we go into committee, which I believe the deputy leader has been made aware of and has had a briefing on, are intended to improve the original bill that was introduced in this place. Can I just place on the public record that it is possible that there may be further amendments that are considered or brought forward between here and the other place, not least because some movement may occur at that COAG meeting on 6 October. If something different comes out of that meeting—I am just foreshadowing for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so that there is no suggestion that we are being anything less than full and frank about this—there may be further changes that become prudent or necessary.

Basically, with the amendments we are proposing, this bill is our best effort, given the knowledge we have at the present time and given the feedback we have had from our own agencies at the present time. In essence, by passing the bill, hopefully this evening—and with the support of the opposition no doubt it will pass—we are placing ourselves in a position where we have a live bill between the houses, which we can, if necessary, further modify in the other place. I think if we approach it from that point of view, everybody knows where we are going and that is a constructive way forward. Again, I thank the deputy leader for her constructive remarks.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Before I move the amendment standing in my name, I just want to check whether the deputy leader wishes me to say anything about these amendments, or have there been sufficient briefings for your purposes?

Ms CHAPMAN: I have had left on my desk at lunchtime, I think it was, a copy of what appears to be explanatory notes of each of the amendments. I have a copy of the amendments 213(1), apparently filed yesterday. I am assuming that is the complete set. I have been attempting, without diverting my attention from the important words you have been saying, Attorney, nevertheless to read that explanatory note as we have gone through. There is just one on amendment No. 6 that I am not entirely clear as to why that is there.

The explanatory note suggests that existing section 6 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 has the effect that the act does not apply in relation to a youth as defined in the Young Offenders Act 1993. This amendment will ensure the act covers terror suspects of 16 or 17 years of age. Can you explain what that means? Does it mean everyone over the age of 15 years is to be subject to the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act? Is that what that means?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are talking about amendment No. 6 at this point and the answer to the question is, yes, people over 15 years of age.

The CHAIR: We are actually talking about amendment No. 1.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I know, but it might be that we do not really have anything further that we are not clear about.

The CHAIR: If you deal with No. 6 you can forget everything else; is that correct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think we are happy with that too. I will simply therefore move each one of my amendments without speaking to them. I move:

Amendment No 1 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 4, after line 17 [clause 5, inserted section 3B]—Insert:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i), a person is only taken to have been charged with an offence if an information or other initiating process charging the person with the offence has been filed in a court.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 2 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 6, after line 24 [clause 11(3)]—Insert:

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), a person is only taken to have been charged with an offence if an information or other initiating process charging the person with the offence has been filed in a court.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 11A.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 3 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 6, before line 25—Insert:

11A—Amendment of section 59—Deputies

Section 59—after subsection (2) insert:

(3) If the presiding member of the Board is for any reason absent or unable to act for the purpose of section 74B or 77AA—

(a) if the first deputy presiding member of the Board is available, the first deputy presiding member must act as the presiding member for that purpose; or

(b) if the first deputy presiding member is for any reason absent or unable to act for that purpose, the second deputy presiding member of the Board must act as the presiding member for that purpose.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 12 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 4 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 10, line 16 [clause 19, inserted section 5A]—Delete 'A person' and substitute:

Subject to this section, a person

Amendment No 5 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 10, after line 20 [clause 19, inserted section 5A]—Insert:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a person is only taken to have been charged with an offence if an information or other initiating process charging the person with the offence has been filed in a court.

(3) A person is not a terror suspect for the purposes of this Act if the person is a terrorist offender within the meaning of subsection 105A.3(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 19A.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 6 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 10, before line 21—Insert:

19A—Amendment of section 6—Application of Act

(1) Section 6—delete 'This' and substitute:

Subject to subsection (2), this

(2) Section 6—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) This Act applies (with any modifications prescribed by the regulations) in relation to a youth who is of or above the age of 16 years and is a terror suspect.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 20 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 7 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 12, after line 17 [clause 23, inserted section 19A]—Insert:

(7) If the presiding member of the Parole Board is for any reason absent or unable to act for the purpose of this section—

(a) if the first deputy presiding member of the Parole Board is available, the first deputy presiding member must act as the presiding member for that purpose; or

(b) if the first deputy presiding member is for any reason absent or unable to act for that purpose, the second deputy presiding member of the Parole Board must act as the presiding member for that purpose.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 24 passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 8 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 13, lines 4 and 5 [clause 25, inserted section 74B(4)]—Delete 'activities or of supporting or otherwise being involved with terrorist activities (terrorism notifications)' and substitute:

offences, or of supporting or otherwise being involved in terrorist offences, or of associating or being affiliated with such persons

Amendment No 9 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 13, after line 12 [clause 25, inserted section 74B]—Insert:

(5a) A police officer of or above the rank of inspector may, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Commissioner, provide a notification relating to persons suspected of terrorist offences, or of supporting or otherwise being involved in terrorist offences, or of associating or being affiliated with such persons.

(5b) If the Commissioner issues guidelines under subsection (5a), the Commissioner must ensure that information relating to the guidelines (including information about the criteria on which terrorism notifications will be provided by a police officer, the manner in which such terrorism notifications will be provided and the records that are to be kept in relation to each notification) is provided, as soon as practicable, to the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee of the Parliament.

Amendment No 10 [DepPrem–1]—

Page 13, after line 37 [clause 25, inserted section 74B]—Insert:

(10) In this section—

Commonwealth Criminal Code means the Criminal Code set out in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, or a law of the Commonwealth that replaces that Code;

terrorism intelligence means information relating to actual or suspected terrorist acts (whether in this State or elsewhere) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice investigations into such acts, to enable the discovery of the existence or identity of a confidential source of information or to endanger a person's life or physical safety;

terrorism notification means a notification provided by a terrorism intelligence authority under subsection (4) or a notification provided by a police officer of or above the rank of inspector under subsection (5a);

terrorist act has the same meaning as in Part 5.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code;

terrorist offence means—

(a) an offence against Division 72 Subdivision A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (International terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices); or

(b) a terrorism offence against Part 5.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Terrorism) where the maximum penalty is 7 or more years imprisonment; or

(c) an offence against Part 5.5 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (Foreign incursions and recruitment), except an offence against subsection 119.7(2) or (3) (Publishing recruitment advertisements); or

(d) an offence against the repealed Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 of the Commonwealth, except an offence against paragraph 9(1)(b) or (c) of that Act (Publishing recruitment advertisements); or

(e) an offence of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (20:43): Can I say thank you to all members who participated in this debate. It has been very constructive. I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 20:44 the house adjourned until Wednesday 27 September 2017 at 11:00.


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT