HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment (Terror Suspect Detention) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 September 2017.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (12:14): I rise to indicate the Australian Conservatives' position on this bill. It is presented to the parliament at a time when there are significant changes being made across our nation in relation to the threat of terrorism, indeed internationally. There is no doubt that the world we live in is vastly different to what it once was, and presumably it may in fact be different in the future from what it is now in this regard, and we expect it will be. Unfortunately, we have seen a number of terrorist acts and we have seen the consequences of those acts throughout the world in recent times. As a result of that a number of raids have been conducted right around the planet to prevent terrorism and to act in what we hope and believe in goodwill is in the best interests of the citizens of those countries, including Australia.

All of these are difficult for us as legislators because some of this legislation intrudes on what would normally be considered the traditional process of events in terms of the rights of witnesses, the rights of those apprehended, etc. This whole series of events, this whole issue, challenges our once-held notion that Australia is somehow immune to these treacherous events, when in fact we have seen incidents on our own shores in recent times that prove categorically that we are not immune from this type of unfortunate event.

This bill was initiated by a COAG agreement on 9 June this year, whereby the ministers present agreed to create a presumption against bail or parole for those who have demonstrated support for or have links with terrorist activity. It is one of the many terrorism bills that we are seeing come through the parliament at both a state and federal level in recent times.

Whilst the threat to the community is real in our estimation—and there are also real concerns the public holds in regard to terrorism—at this stage we can only give, at best, an educated guess as to how these laws, as proposed, and others proposed nationally at the moment, will be used and how effectively they will be in stopping the threat of terrorism in Australia.

This bill certainly will take our South Australian law in a direction that many in the legal profession will be uncomfortable with. We share some of those concerns. It is not without some reflection that our parliament should pass what once would have been considered unpalatable, even unthinkable, legislation. But, on balance, we consider these laws are necessary to protect the greater good.

One of the most obvious situations that has caused community angst is that of Man Monis, the Lindt Café shooter, who was out on bail after being charged with being an accessory before and after the fact of the murder of his ex-wife. Whilst Man Monis did not have any official links to terrorism, it seems, he has been described as self-identifying and self-affiliating with ISIS. It is quite likely that under this bill, should it have been enacted with the information-sharing provisions that it includes, Man Monis would have been subject to a terrorism notification and therefore remanded in custody, rather than being out on bail and able to commit such an atrocity.

There was significant public outcry regarding his bail status, and no doubt this bill is in part due to that situation, as well as others. We have long called for tougher laws for those who commit serious or heinous crimes, so, not surprisingly, as I indicated at the outset, this is a bill that the Australian Conservatives will support, although of course it is important for all of us to understand that these are quite extraordinary measures in some regards.

Currently, the Bail Act says that persons should be granted bail unless the bail authority considers sufficient reasons to not grant bail exist. Under this bill the presumption is changed to require bail to be refused to a terror suspect, unless special circumstances justifying their release can be established, otherwise known as a reverse of the onus.

To be a terror suspect one merely has to be charged with a terrorist offence, those who have been convicted and those who are subject to a terrorism notification, which I understand is very similar to the commonwealth Bail Act provisions. The notion that someone can previously have been charged with a terrorist offence, but not have that matter proceed because there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge, is an understandable inclusion, but it does raise some concern as to how it will be managed and what level of scrutiny those few who have no ties to terrorist organisations may come under should they have been incorrectly charged with an act they actually did not commit.

One would hope that common sense would prevail in this instance. However, when it comes to terrorism people are very sensitive, understandably, and at times even over cautious, and it does allow for the situation whereby someone can suffer, through no fault of their own. It also creates a situation whereby someone who was applying for bail for an offence which has nothing to do with terrorism will likely be denied because of a prior charge or offence in this regard.

As mentioned, we can see why this inclusion would be in the bill, and it does add a level of protection against those who are legitimately engaged in terrorist activities. When I say 'legitimately engaged', actually engaged is perhaps a better description. Presumably, a person who has either severed their terrorist links or never had any to begin with would be able to prove that there are special circumstances that would justify their release under this regime. Time will tell if this alone will prove to be sufficient. We certainly hope it does.

This bill creates a presumption against bail and parole for terror suspects, as I previously outlined. It further provides for post-sentence supervision and extended detention where the likelihood of the person being involved in or committing a terrorist offence is high. The bill extends information-sharing provisions across jurisdictions to allow intelligence authorities to share information regarding those suspected of terrorist activities, supporting terrorist activities or otherwise being involved in terrorist activities. These are all common-sense provisions and will enjoy our support.

Placing terror suspects into the high-risk offenders act is also a welcome inclusion. The Attorney-General or commonwealth Attorney-General would be able to apply to the Supreme Court for an extended supervision order against someone who is serving a term of imprisonment in South Australia. The term of imprisonment does not have to be related to terrorism offences for an extended supervision order to be given, which, again, has caused concern in some legal circles. In our view it is in keeping with the types of laws we pass here and what is necessary for the common good regarding terrorism and criminal organisations, which today operate in much different circumstances than they used to.

The Law Society, perhaps not unexpectedly, has raised the concern that information relating to terrorism notifications will not be shared with the accused or their legal team, and that creates difficulty in contemplating how they might successfully mount an argument that the accused does not pose a risk and should be granted bail. This is becoming an ever-increasing trend in bills before our parliament, where sections of law enforcement hold information which is not released to the accused but which can have a significant impact on the rights of the individual. We must be cautious with these developments.

At this stage we are, on balance, prepared to accept extending these sorts of provisions, as we have done to criminal intelligence, now, through this bill, to terrorist notifications. However, it is certainly not something we would expect to see in less serious matters before this parliament and, ultimately, before the courts as a result.

Due to the seriousness of the sorts of offences this bill targets and the increasing threat that Australia, and hopefully to a lesser degree South Australia, faces, we reluctantly concede that we believe, on balance, that these measures are somewhat necessary. I expect that this bill will pass, and it will enjoy Australian Conservatives' support.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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