Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014: Second Tranche of National Security Legislation
Monday 20 October 2014 @ 10.02 a.m. | Crime | Immigration
A new counterterrorism bill is scheduled to be debated before Australia’s parliament today (20 October 2014). The bill, dubbed the Foreign Fighters Bill, will be the second tranche of the government’s national security legislation. It will introduce broad new criminal offences that could potentially undermine rights to freedom of expression and movement.
The Bill
The proposed Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill prohibits travel to “declared zones,” “subverting society,” and advocating terrorism, and permits the extended use of control orders and preventive detention. Attorney General George Brandis vouches for the necessity of the bill as a response to the escalating security crisis in Iraq and Syria and the threat it poses to the Australian people.
Brandis explained that the government’s comprehensive review of Australia's national security and counter-terrorism legislation showed that it does not sufficiently address the emerging and unique domestic security threats posed by the return of Australians who have participated in foreign conflicts, trained with extremist groups, or people in Australia who provide support to those who may seek to do us harm.
The bill will thus:
- create new offences for 'advocating terrorism' and for entering or remaining in a 'declared zone';
- broaden the criteria and streamline the process for the listing of terrorist organisations;
- extend instances in which a control order may be sought; extend the sunsetting provisions of the preventative detention order and control order regimes; and include a sunset clause for the 'declared zone' offence;
- provide certain law enforcement agencies with additional tools needed to investigate, arrest and prosecute those supporting foreign conflicts;
- limit the means of travel for foreign fighting or support for foreign fighters; and
- strengthen protections at Australia's borders
Committee Recommendation
A parliamentary committee has called for elements of the controversial bill to be watered down and additional checks to be applied. The committee supports the overall goal and thrust of the bill leaving it more or less intact. The recommendations from the committee were more to deal with any of the bill’s oversights.
Among the 36 changes being recommended by the committee are that police and spy agency powers to hold people without charge or restrict their movements should expire two years after the next Federal election. This is significantly sooner than the 10-year "sunset clause" that the government is seeking. The committee also expressed its concerns over the foreign minister’s ability to declare an entire country a ‘no go zone.’ It says whole countries should not be declared terrorist zones – only particular regions – and each declaration should be a "disallowable instrument", meaning it can be overturned by either house of Parliament. Also, that law should have a sunset clause at 24 months after the next election.
Finally, the committee also called for a more specific definition of the term ‘advocating terrorism.’ This would be a distinct crime from the current existing crime of inciting terrorist acts which is considerably more specific.
Community Reaction
Human Rights Watch Australian director, Elaine Pearson, criticised the redundancy of the bill’s goal. She says:
“the Australian government already has ample and sufficient powers to combat terrorism…The new offense of ‘advocating terrorism’ is so broad and vague that it risks criminalizing free speech, while the ban on travel to ‘declared areas’ ignores many legitimate reasons people travel to areas caught up in armed conflict.”
Muslim groups, lawyers and other civil liberty groups have united to urge the Federal government to delay passing the bill. The groups have mainly criticised the extreme haste in the passage of the bill which would effectively bar community response and input to fully debate the controversial changes.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance has raised concern the new law could be unconstitutional as it will allow security agents to search houses before applying for a "delayed notification" warrant and give the Attorney-General power to suspend a terror suspect's welfare payments. In both cases, there would be no avenue to appeal to the courts.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
