NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS TO BE CHANGED

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 000751 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AS PGOV PTER SUBJECT: NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS TO BE CHANGED ¶1. (U) Summary: The government has proposed changes to Australia's counter-terrorism and national security laws which strengthen them in some areas, while softening them in others. The government will seek to expand the definition of terrorism and give police greater search powers. On the other hand, the government wants to limit the period of time a suspect can be held without charge, and establish greater parliamentary oversight of the Australian Federal Police. These changes are based on recommendations from a number of reviews, including the inquiry into the Mohamed Haneef case. Separate to the review is the government's Counter Terrorism White Paper, expected to be handed down later in the year. End Summary. THE CHANGES ¶2. (U) On August 13, the Attorney-General released a discussion paper on reforms to national security and counter-terrorism legislation. The government's key proposals are: --expanding the definition of a "terrorist act" in the Criminal Code to include psychological, as well as physical harm; --providing police with new emergency powers to enter and search premises without a warrant where it is suspected, on reasonable grounds, that there is material relevant to a terrorism offense and there is a threat to public health or safety; --extending the time available for police to re-enter a premises under a search warrant from one hour to 12 hours in emergency circumstances; --introducing a new "terrorism hoax offense", punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, for those that seek to create a false belief that a terrorist act is occurring, or will likely occur; --establishing a maximum seven day limit on the amount of time that can be specified by a magistrate and disregarded from the investigation period in relation to an alleged terrorism offense (Note: this effectively means a suspect can only be held for a maximum seven days without charge); --inserting a right of appeal for both the prosecution and the defendant against bail decisions in terrorism and national security matters, including a power to stay a bail order where an appeal is planned; --creating an offense of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion to supplement the existing Commonwealth offense of inciting violence against a group; --extending the expiration period of regulations proscribing a terrorist organization from two to three years (Note: this essentially means the definition of a terrorist group is valid for three years instead of two); --amending the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 so that national security and counter-terrorism court proceedings may be expedited; --establishing a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to extend parliamentary oversight to include the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in addition to the Australian Crime Commission (ACC); --renaming the offense of sedition to "urging violence" and expanding its provisions to include urging force or violence against an individual, not just a group, and including "national origin", as well as race, religion, nationality or political opinion as a reason for urging violence. WHY CHANGE THE LAWS? ¶3. (SBU) In December 2008, the government announced its response to a number of reviews of national security and counter terrorism laws, including the inquiry into the Mohamed Haneef case. The government stated it supported the majority of recommendations. The discussion, paper, which has Qmajority of recommendations. The discussion, paper, which has called for public comment until September 25, 2009, is an important step in the process of reforming the laws. THE HANEEF LEGACY CANBERRA 00000751 002 OF 002 ¶4. (U) One of the most anticipated proposals is the creation of a cap on the period time a suspect can be held without charge. Currently, the maximum period of time a suspect can be questioned without charge is 24 hours. However, this questioning can be spread over an indefinite period. This was highlighted in the case of Mohammed Haneef who was questioned for 24 hours over 13 days before he was charged. The Opposition says it will consider supporting the changes, while claiming the existing laws have struck the right balance between protecting the community and the rights of individuals. The Shadow Attorney-General remarked: "Those who seek to expand laws that are already invasive have a strong burden of persuasion to show why the existing laws are inadequate. Draconian laws are no substitute for well-resourced agencies." LISTING OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS ¶5. (SBU) Last week's counter-terrorism raid in Melbourne led to calls for al-Shabab to be listed as a terrorist organization. Despite the focus on the terrorist organization list, the government has not proposed making it easier to list groups. Indeed, there is a slight softening in what constitutes a group advocating terrorism. Proof of "substantial" risk, rather than just "risk" will be required when deciding whether a group's praise might lead to a person to engage in a terrorist act. OTHER DEVELOPMENTS ¶6. (U) Separate to the discussion paper, is the government's plan to introduce a National Security Legislation Monitor to annually review national security and counter-terrorism laws, and its Counter Terrorism White Paper which is expected to be released this year. Control Orders (which place restrictions on the movements and activities of people who pose a terrorist risk to the community) and Preventative Detention (when a person may be detained for a maximum period of up to 48 hours if there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person will engage in or prepare for terrorist acts) laws will reviewed in 2010 by the Council of Australian Governments as agreed by the federal, state and territory governments in 2005 (complementary state and territory government legislation were required for these). "GETTING THE BALANCE RIGHT" ¶7. (SBU) Comment: National security has traditionally been a strong suit for the conservative coalition. Subsequently, the Rudd government is determined not to be seen as "soft" on terrorism. Incumbency is a powerful tool on the issue of national security; since Rudd was elected the Coalition's big lead on this issue has virtually vanished. Overall, the government is proposing a slight toughening of national security and counter terrorism laws. The majority of voters won't object to this, given recent events in Melbourne and Jakarta.