Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:42): I rise to speak in support of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. Unfortunately, this place has not yet had the benefit of the findings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on this bill. I respectfully ask all members in this place to support my amendment that I'll be discussing in consideration in detail on this bill.
I also request that the committee that I referred to consider further broadening my amendment to incorporate all terrorism offences. I must say I do reserve the right to bring a private member's bill to that effect into this place to ensure that, where there is a guilty finding for terrorism, there must be a conviction. Today's bill, coupled with my amendment, would strengthen—and will strengthen—protections for the Australian community against terrorism.
First, to this bill—the bill amends multiple pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Crimes Act 1914. It will extend the operation of control orders, preventive detention orders and post-sentence orders that are due to expire on 7 December this year, and it will allow them to be further expanded for three years. Control orders are not used lightly.
They are issued by courts on application from the Australian Federal Police with consent of the Attorney-General to prevent terrorist activity and to protect the public. They can prevent a person from leaving Australia, being in certain places, associating with certain people, carrying out activities under certain items and accessing forms of technology such as the internet.
They can, for example, require a person to be wearing a tracking device or require someone to report at a certain time. In line with the increasing use of such orders to manage the risk posed by serious terrorist offenders, the bill will strengthen control orders and adapt them better to the probable terrorist threat. It will ensure that information about a person found guilty of an offence without conviction can be considered and disclosed in control and post-sentence order applications and proceedings where relevant, support improved voluntary information sharing between states and territories and the Commonwealth for the purpose of control orders, and provide for issuing of electronic surveillance warrants in relation to serious terrorist offenders in custody in relation to control order applications against those offenders.
It will improve the Criminal Code terrorist organisation listing framework to allow for delisting and expand the protections of United Nations personnel. This bill has been introduced by the government in the context of a national terrorism threat level of 'probable'. This means that there's a chance of more than 50 per cent, more likely than not, of an onshore terrorist attack in Australia or plans for such an attack in the next 12 months.
The tragedy of Bondi and the subsequent royal commission demonstrate that the terrorist threat to us as Australian citizens is all too real. We have an urgent responsibility to do as much as possible to bring the risk level down and keep our communities safe from terrorism. The Department of Home Affairs reports that there are 298 people in the Countering Violent Extremism deradicalisation program.
Concerningly, that's up from 253 individuals in December last year, an increase of nearly 20 per cent in a period of six months. It's hard to believe that there are so many people on Australian soil enjoying living in Australia who hate this place so much. This group is made up predominantly of younger males.
Deradicalisation is complex and costly, and success is not assured. In the 2026-27 budget program, $74 million was allocated over two years, such as the National Support and Intervention Program, and $25 million this year was allocated to national initiatives countering violent extremism. I was surprised that the government's bill included a provision to ensure that information about a person found guilty of an offence without conviction can be considered and disclosed in control order and post-sentence order applications and proceedings where relevant.
It begs the question of how there could be a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the most serious offence I can imagine—an offence of terror against our nation, our government and our communities—yet a court could proceed to dismiss such a charge without conviction. My amendment, as I'll discuss in consideration in detail, would disapply section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914 so that it's not available in relation to a person found guilty of a terrorist act under section 101.1 of the Criminal Code.
If charges are proven and a person is found guilty but the charges are dismissed and the person is discharged without proceeding to conviction, it means that, even though they've been proven guilty to the requisite standard of proof, no conviction would be recorded. Standard police checks will not show the finding of guilt for such an offence, because there will be nothing on their formal criminal record.
That affects employment. Just think; a person can then have a blank sheet, walk into a childcare centre and work. They can walk into aged care, NDIS—vulnerable people.
They've been found guilty of a terrorism offence or pleaded guilty to a terrorism offence and have no conviction. In immigration terms, not having a conviction recorded may be of benefit to noncitizens, even if they are permanent residents. They would face mandatory visa cancellation or deportation if convicted of a serious offence.
Already, the section 19B discretion is not allowed to proceed with respect to the Migration Act, where there are people-smuggling offences and findings of guilt. There are other examples at a state level. Terrorism is sadly something that we live with now.
We didn't have to live with it decades ago. Australia was a much safer place than it is today. The primary consideration must be the protection of the Australian community from criminals and other serious conduct where guilt of a terrorist offence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I commend this bill to the House and look forward to discussing my amendment in consideration in detail.