Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (1.33pm)-I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5636:
(1) [Amendment to Senator Troeth's amendment (1) on sheet 5632]
At the end of paragraph (g) of the definition of terrorism laws, add:
; (h) any other law or part of a law of the Commonwealth under which a power is conferred or a liability is established in connection with, either directly or indirectly, a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act has occurred or will occur).

I would like to thank Senator Troeth for supporting this amendment. We wanted, essentially, to provide more guidance to the reviewer than we thought was written up in the original wording of ‘is not limited to'.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Mark Bishop)-The question is that Greens amendment (1) moved to opposition amendment (1) be agreed to.
Question agreed to.

Senator TROETH (Victoria) (1.35 pm)-I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 5632:
(2) Clause 8, page 3 (line 26) to page 4 (line2), omit the clause, substitute:
8 Functions of the Independent Reviewer
The functions of the Independent Reviewer are:
(a) at the request of the responsible Minister; or
(b) at the request of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; or
(c) on the Independent Reviewer's own motion; to review terrorism laws in order to assess whether the laws and their operation:
(d) are an effective and efficient means of preventing, detecting or prosecuting terrorist acts; and
(e) alter fundamental legal principles, such as habeas corpus; and
(f) are consistent with Australia's human rights obligations; and
(g) have any adverse social consequences.

This amendment details the functions of the independent reviewer. We agreed that it was necessary to comprehensively describe the role, function and criteria of the review. Amended clause 8 provides more detailed descriptions of the function-that is, it must assess laws to ensure consistency with human rights obligations.

We also agree with Senator Ludlam's amendment on that same clause.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (1.35pm)-by leave-I move Greens amendments (2) to (5) on sheet 5636:
(2) [Amendment to Senator Troeth's amendment (2) on sheet 5632]
At the end of paragraph 8(c), add ", at least every 2 years".
(3) [Amendment to Senator Troeth's amendment (2) on sheet 5632]
Paragraph 8(f), after "human rights", insert ", privacy and other international".
(4) [Amendment to Senator Troeth's amendment (2) on sheet 5632]
After paragraph 8(f), insert:
(fa) continue to be necessary; and
(fb) are proportional to the extant threat of terrorism; and
(5) [Amendment to Senator Troeth's amendment (2) on sheet 5632]
At the end of clause 8, add:
(2) The Independent Reviewer also has the following additional functions:
(a) investigation of the manner in which relevant law enforcement agencies interpret and implement terrorism laws; and
(b) investigation of the use of their powers by relevant law enforcement agencies in interpreting and implementing terrorism law.
(3) The Independent Reviewer may, of his or her own motion:
(a) make submissions to parliamentary or other committees examining bills making, amending or otherwise affecting terrorism laws; and
(b) participate in reviews of terrorism laws, such as reviews by the Council of Australian Governments.

I will speak briefly to each one. Hopefully, they are fairly clear.

Amendment (2) goes to the fact that it is not sufficient for the independent reviewer to examine each law only once. We think that they should be revisited.

We have suggested provision for a two-year review of each of the pieces of legislation listed in Senator
Troeth's first amendment. Our amendment (3) essentially goes to what I mentioned in earlier debate on this bill-that is, how the amendments proposed by Senator Bob Brown benchmark the operation of the terror laws against Australia's human rights standards.

We have suggested a broader framing of the way that those human rights obligations are drafted.
Amendment (4) goes to the risk that the work of the independent reviewer may simply entrench the terrorism laws as a legitimate part of Australia's legal landscape.

In our view, there are some aspects of these laws which should simply be repealed.

The final amendment to speak to at this point, amendment (5), is that the antiterror laws are not simply words on paper; they are also procedures and practices of authorised agencies and institutions whose powers have been expanded, in some cases, significantly.

We have moved to give the independent reviewer explicit permission to participate at his or her discretion in any of these other processes.

Question agreed to. Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (1.38 pm)-I move Australian Greens amendment (6) on sheet 5636:
(6) Clause 9, page 4 (line 12), omit "must", substitute "may".
Very briefly, amendment (6) goes to a point that was made several times during the committee inquiry-that the independent reviewer should be truly independent and not be unduly tied too closely to existing organisations.
For example, we believe that the reviewer should have regard to investigations conducted by agencies such as ASIO, the AFP, the Ombudsman and so on, without being compelled to suspend activities on the basis of supposed duplication. There may be some benefit to the reviewer's ability to provide an independent voice or verification of an investigation which may already be underway.
Question agreed to.

Senator TROETH (Victoria) (1.38 pm)-by leave-I move opposition amendments (3) and (7) on sheet 5632:
(3) Clause 9, page 4 (line 14), before "Australian Security", insert "the".
(7) Clause 11, page 6 (line 16), after "Reviewer", insert "under this section".

These amendments, which refer to clause 9 and clause 11, make a drafting correction and a technical amendment.
Question agreed to.

Senator TROETH (Victoria) (1.40 pm)-by leave-I move opposition amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 5632:
(4) Clause 10, page 5 (lines 5 to 8), omit subclause (4), substitute:
(4) Where the Independent Reviewer takes possession of, makes copies of, or takes extracts from documents, the documents, copies or extracts, as the case may be, will be held securely by the Independent Reviewer and within 6 months of the completion of the review:
(a) original documents or extracts from documents received from agencies must be returned to those agencies; and
(b) copies of documents or copies of extracts from documents held by the Independent Reviewer must be destroyed.
(5) Page 5 (after line 21), after clause 10, insert:
10A Offences
A person who after being given a notice under subsection 10(1) or 10(5) fails to comply with the notice when required to do so or fails to answer a question that the Independent Reviewer requires the person to answer is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction:
(a) in the case of a natural person-by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months or both; or
(b) in the case of a body corporate-by a fine not exceeding $5,000.

These amendments detail the documents, extracts and copies that are to be made and also the offences which are to be detailed in the law.
Question agreed to.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (1.40pm)-I move Australian Greens amendment (7) on sheet 5636:
(7) Clause 10, page 5 (after line 13), after subclause (5), insert:
(5A) If a person is required to attend before the Independent Reviewer under subsection (5), the Independent
Reviewer may:
(a) require the person, before answering questions, either to take an oath or to make an affirmation in a form approved by the Independent Reviewer; and
(b) administer an oath or affirmation to the person.

We are seeking here to amend the original bill to empower the independent reviewer to require people to take an oath or an affirmation before providing information relevant to the reviews.

Senator TROETH (Victoria) (1.41 pm)
I indicate agreement for this amendment. We believe that some of the questions that the independent reviewer may be asking a person are not normally the sorts of questions which may be asked under oath or by affirmation. I am prepared to agree with the Greens amendment.
Question agreed to.

Senator TROETH (Victoria) (1.41 pm)-by leave-I move opposition amendments (6) and (9) on
sheet 5632:
(6) Clause 11, page 6 (lines 6 to 15), omit subclause (3).
(9) Page 6 (after line 19), after clause 11, insert:
11B Annual report
(1) The Independent Reviewer must, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, prepare and provide to the Prime Minister a report of the operations of the Independent Reviewer during the year that ended on that 30 June.
(2) The Prime Minister must cause a copy of a report provided under subsection (1) to be presented to each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable after the report is presented to the Prime Minister, subject to the Independent Reviewer's certification that the report should be so presented and to the deletion of any part the publication of which the Independent Reviewer certifies may adversely affect national security or which the Independent Reviewer certifies should not be published on other compelling grounds.

These amendments deal with the annual report and the way in which it is presented to parliament. We believe that it is necessary for the annual report to be made, and that is detailed in these clauses.
Question agreed to.

Senator TROETH (Victoria) (1.42 pm)-I move opposition amendment (8) on sheet 5632:
(8) Page 6 (after line 19), after clause 11, insert:
11A Protection from civil action
(1) Neither the Independent Reviewer, nor a person acting on behalf of the Independent Reviewer, is liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for or in relation to any act done or omitted to be done in good faith in performance or purported performance of any function or in exercise or purported exercise of any power conferred on the Independent Reviewer.
(2) Where:
(a) a complaint has been made to the Independent Reviewer; or
(b) a document has been produced, or information or evidence has been given to the Independent
Reviewer; a person is not liable to an action, suit or proceeding in respect of loss, damage or injury of any kind suffered by another person by reason only that the complaint was made, the document was produced or the evidence was given.

This amendment makes certain that the independent reviewer and a person acting on behalf of the independent reviewer will not be liable to an action or other proceeding for damages. It simply protects the person and ensures the complete independence that we wish for.
Question agreed to.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (1.42pm)-I move Australian Greens amendment (8) on sheet 5636:
(8) Clause 12, page 7 (line 5), omit "5 years", substitute "3 years".
In the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into this bill, we received a variety of advice going to the tenure or the term of the reviewer. We feel that it is important, particularly if there is only to be one reviewer rather than our preferred option of three, that the tenure should be limited.
We have proposed three years rather than five years.

Senator TROETH (Victoria) (1.43 pm)- I regret that the opposition cannot agree to this amendment. I believe for security of tenure and a proper review such as that that we are instituting that this should be five years.
Question negatived.