Mr DUTTON (2:41 PM) —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House of the outcome of the court appearance referred to in question time yesterday and what measures may be necessary to deal with the issue of bail?

Mr RUDDOCK (Attorney-General) —I thank the honourable member for Dickson for his question. Yesterday, I did inform the House of the arrest of a 30-year-old Sydney man following the investigation by the Australian Federal Police and their joint counter-terrorism team of matters involving Bilal Khazal. Subsequently, he was bailed in Sydney in the Sydney Central Local Court on a charge of collecting or making documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts contrary to section 101.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. In relation to this matter, I have spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have also been appraised of an approach by the Commissioner of Police in New South Wales in relation to this matter, and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions is considering options in relation to the grant of bail in this case.

It is important for members to be aware that in Commonwealth matters bail has been dealt with by state and territory courts pursuant to their respective state and territory legislation dealing with bail. That happens in relation to a number of the matters, including sentencing. It is obvious that it is best not to have a system in one state where you have different regimes for state-committed offences and Commonwealth-committed offences. Each state does deal with the issue of bail somewhat differently. In New South Wales there has been a long-standing and general presumption that exists that a person is entitled to bail. That presumption does not apply to charges in certain serious offences, including murder, manslaughter, narcotics, certain firearms and certain violence offences. Terrorism has not been defined in this way for the purposes of bail in New South Wales nor, might I say, at this stage, in any other state of Australia.

The police minister in New South Wales raised this matter with me on Monday following another matter, and indicated that New South Wales would be looking to amend the bail law in New South Wales. I am pleased to inform the House that a bill was introduced today and passed the New South Wales legislative assembly to amend bail laws to ensure that the presumption is against bail in matters involving serious terrorism offences.

I obviously welcome that and would encourage other states and territories to review their laws. But I do not know whether their parliaments are sitting. I do not know how long it would take. For that reason, I have received policy approval to move expeditiously to amend the Commonwealth Crimes Act to include a presumption against bail, while maintaining the capacity for courts to grant bail in only exceptional circumstances. I would hope to bring that bill forward and receive speedy passage for it through both houses when we resume.

I think it is important to have a national approach in all jurisdictions relating to this matter. I think it needs to be clear that terrorism offences are going to be treated with the utmost seriousness. The Commonwealth does continue to enjoy a very close working relationship with the states and territories in relation to these matters. I think that was evident in the matter that I informed the House of yesterday.

I understand that there has been some criticism directed at the timing of this matter and the arrest. That is a reflection upon two independent statutory officers—the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. They are both independent in relation to these matters. The timing of the investigation and the consideration as to whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute were matters addressed by each of those officers exercising their independent role. Timing was a matter that was totally within their hands.