Torture ruled out of counter-terrorism laws for Australian security agencies
|
Version 0 of 1. The Abbott government has moved to head off concerns over the most significant overhaul of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws in a decade by agreeing to explicitly prohibit the use of torture and set a 10-year expiry date for contentious elements. But the attorney general, George Brandis, confirmed that a new offence designed to target suspected foreign fighters would require the prosecutor to merely prove that a person had travelled to, or remained in, designated “no-go zones”. It would then be up to the defence to mount a successful argument that the defendant was there for a legitimate purpose, a position that Brandis argued was not legally a reversal of the onus of proof. Brandis announced on Monday several concessions in response to feedback from the Islamic community and from the Labor opposition, just hours after the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, called for the first bill to be amended to specifically prohibit torture. The Liberal Democratic senator, David Leyonhjelm, last week raised concern that the proposed framework for new “special intelligence operations” could allow torture. The government’s first security bill, set for parliamentary debate this week, would protect Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) employees and affiliates from criminal and civil liability for the purposes of such covert operations. The immunity would not apply if the person caused death or serious injury, involved a sexual offence, or caused significant damage to property. Dreyfus told the ABC on Monday: “If it is, in any way, ambiguous the government should put this beyond doubt by inserting a pretty simple provision to make clear that in no sense, in no circumstances ever, can there be any permission for an Australian public servant to engage in torture. It’s pretty simple and I don’t think it should be a matter of just a government minister or the attorney-general saying ‘trust me’ or ‘take my word for it’.” Brandis subsequently called a media conference to confirm that the government would add a provision to ensure that the legal immunity did not apply for conduct that constituted torture. Asio had no power to engage in torture, he said, but the government wanted to put the issue beyond doubt. “I don’t want the discussion of this important issue to be diverted by an issue that is effectively a red herring,” Brandis said. “So this morning in consultation with the [Asio] director-general and in consultation with the prime minister, I’ve decided to add an explicit prohibition in relation to torture so far as concerns special intelligence operations.” Brandis said he would also legislate a 2025 expiry date on preventative detention orders and control orders. These powers were due to expire in 2015 under existing legislation, and the government had planned to abolish the so-called sunset clauses. Brandis said the government would heed “the very, very strong view of leaders of the Islamic community that removing the sunsetting provisions would send a bad message to that community”. The provisions would expire in 2025, unless a future parliament legislated to extend them. He said a new measure targeting Australians travelling to a declared region or country without a legitimate purpose would also be subject to a 2025 sunset clause. The new offence will be included in the foreign fighters bill to be presented to parliament on Wednesday. The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, would gain the power to declare by regulation particular regions, such as Syria and northern Iraq, as effective no-go zones. Asked whether someone currently in the regions that would be declared as no-go zones would be captured by the provisions, Brandis confirmed the prohibition was “on entering or remaining in” the location. Dreyfus said earlier that he welcomed Brandis’s statement that the government did not intend to reverse the onus of proof. Dreyfus said, however, that the new provision about declared zones was “dramatic”. “This particular provision has excited a fair bit of controversy because it amounts to the government banning travel to particular areas ... and possibly whole countries,” Dreyfus said. “It would then be a requirement for someone who is accused of breaking that prohibition to prove they were there for some innocent reason.” Parliament this week will debate the first tranche of changes to expand the powers of intelligence and security agencies, and the government plans on Wednesday to introduce the second bill specifically targeting Australians who seek to fight with militant groups overseas. Brandis has said he expects bipartisan support for the tougher laws, which would remove the need for the government to negotiate with crossbench senators. Labor has sought to minimise any differences between it and the government on matters of national security, but has indicated it will reserve its decision on the foreign fighters bill until after it has seen the legislation. The prime minister, Tony Abbott, is preparing to make an address to parliament on Monday afternoon on national security, canvassing domestic terrorism threats and Australia’s commitment to military action in Iraq and seeking to build support for a raft of legislative changes. Leyonhjelm had threatened to withdraw his support for government legislation unless Brandis moved to explicitly close the loophole that could allow Asio to engage in torture. “It doesn’t get much bigger than torture,” Leyonhjelm told Sky News earlier on Monday. Security at Parliament House is also being stepped up after the prime minister referred last week to “chatter” about the building being a potential target. Dreyfus said the previous government had addressed security issues at Parliament House following a review but “didn’t talk about that while we were in government” as he “did not see it as necessary to do so”. He said he was “very surprised” at the downgrading of security screening at Parliament House earlier this year. Brandis played down the low number of charges arising out of the major counter-terrorism raids in Sydney last week. “One shouldn’t make the simple-minded mistake of assuming that because so far there has only been one arrest for a significant terrorism offence, that the operation was not justified,” he said. |