

- Title
INTERNATIONAL TRANSFER OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL 2004
In Committee
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
08-03-2004
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
40
- Electorate
Western Australia
- Interjector
- Page
21009
- Party
LP
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Ellison, Sen Chris
- Stage
In Committee
- Type
- Context
Bills
- System Id
chamber/hansards/2004-03-08/0116
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- COMMITTEES
- INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
- BUSINESS
- WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (COMPLIANCE WITH COURT AND TRIBUNAL ORDERS) BILL 2003
- BUSINESS
- INTERNATIONAL TRANSFER OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL 2004
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Health: Program Funding
(Mackay, Sen Sue, Campbell, Sen Ian) -
Women: Government Policies
(Payne, Sen Marise, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Veterans: Entitlements
(Bishop, Sen Mark, Coonan, Sen Helen) -
Economy: Fiscal Policy
(Lightfoot, Sen Ross, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Women: Domestic Violence
(Lundy, Sen Kate, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Workplace Relations: Paid Maternity Leave
(Stott Despoja, Sen Natasha, Patterson, Sen Kay) -
Asia Pacific Space Centre
(Carr, Sen Kim) -
Health and Ageing: Aged Care
(Harradine, Sen Brian, Campbell, Sen Ian) -
Trade: Free Trade Agreement
(Conroy, Sen Stephen, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Australian Labor Party: Centenary House
(Mason, Sen Brett, Abetz, Sen Eric) -
Trade: Free Trade Agreement
(Lundy, Sen Kate, Hill, Sen Robert) -
Superannuation: Parliamentary Scheme
(Cherry, Sen John, Minchin, Sen Nick) -
Superannuation: Children's Accounts
(Sherry, Sen Nick, Coonan, Sen Helen)
-
Health: Program Funding
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- PETITIONS
- NOTICES
- ENVIRONMENT: CLIMATE CHANGE
- TRADE: FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
- MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
- DOCUMENTS
- BUDGET 2003-04
-
NEW INTERNATIONAL TAX ARRANGEMENTS BILL 2003
TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2004 -
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2004 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2004
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 2) 2003-2004
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2003-2004
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2003-2004 - BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
-
INTERNATIONAL TRANSFER OF PRISONERS AMENDMENT BILL 2004
- Second Reading
-
In Committee
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ludwig, Sen Joe
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Division
- Procedural Text
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Ellison, Sen Chris
- Brown, Sen Bob
- Third Reading
- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2004
- BUSINESS
- MIGRATION AMENDMENT (DURATION OF DETENTION) BILL 2004
- ADJOURNMENT
- DOCUMENTS
- QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Page: 21009
Senator ELLISON (Minister for Justice and Customs) (6:29 PM)
—I think it is inappropriate to go into operational detail here because of the fact that this is a matter which could be the subject of proceedings. But can I say that the question of a hostile act in a foreign country is one which depends on that foreign country.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Senator ELLISON
—Before the break I was in the process of replying to an inquiry from Senator Brown in relation to the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. Senator Brown had asked why it was not possible to prosecute Mr Hicks and/or Mr Habib under that legislation. As I stated earlier, that act provides:
(1) A person shall not:
(a) enter a foreign State with intent to engage in a hostile activity in that foreign State; or
(b) engage in a hostile activity in a foreign State.
Firstly, in relation to that offence, you would have to make out that the activity complained of was a hostile activity in that foreign state. If that foreign state was a sponsor of terrorism and that person was engaged in training with that terrorist organisation, that foreign state, if it be a rogue state—and I am putting this in a general sense—might well not regard that as a hostile activity. Subsection (4) of the same section says:
(4) Nothing in this section applies to an act done by a person in the course of, and as part of, the person's service in any capacity in or with:
(a) the armed forces of the government of a foreign State; or
(b) any other armed force in respect of which a declaration by the Minister under subsection 9(2) is in force.
Again, the defence is raised in relation to that. It could well raise the spectre of the alleged terrorist training being part and parcel of the armed services of Afghanistan at the time. You have to remember that the Taliban's was an oppressive regime—I am sure that by no means would Senator Brown regard it otherwise—and al-Qaeda more than existed there; it existed in that state with the sponsorship of that state. It could well be open to anyone who was training with al-Qaeda to raise a number of defences. I have cited some aspects of the legislation which I believe are relevant to the consideration of a prosecution under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. I said I would not go into operational detail—and I will not—but I just point out to the committee those aspects of this legislation that Senator Brown has referred to which really do complicate matters. The relevant legislation is really the counter-terrorism legislation which relates to the membership of a designated terrorist organisation. That is really the relevant legislation which, of course, was not in place when the alleged activities occurred.