Julie Bishop moves to allay concerns about key aspect of proposed counter-terrorism laws

Updated

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has offered a different explanation to that previously given by the Government of how a contentious new counter-terrorism law would be applied.

Earlier this month, Attorney-General George Brandis announced that anyone travelling to areas of terrorist activity would be committing an offence, and would have to "explain that the purpose of their travel to that designated locality was for humanitarian purposes, family purposes or other innocuous purposes".

The comments suggested the onus of proof would be reversed to rest with the person charged, instead of the authorities.

But Ms Bishop says that is not the case.

"There's no reversal of the onus of proof," she said.

"We want to designate areas that are, for example, held by terrorist organisations like IS [Islamic State], and if someone wants to go to an area held by the terrorists and they have a legitimate reason for being there, that's fine.

Analysis: Louise Yaxley

Political reporter Louise Yaxley says Julie Bishop's comments clarify the Government's position.



We saw earlier this month that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General George Brandis ... explained their plans on this.



But they didn't give us utter clarity on exactly how that would happen, and we haven't yet seen the draft legislation. And that's why there's been some confusion and there's been a lot of criticism so far from legal experts, lawyers groups.



What we're seeing now is the Foreign Minister taking some of the heat out of that by saying that it won't be a reversal of the onus of proof.



I think it paves the way for the Government to be able to get these measures through the Parliament in a more straightforward way, because it would take out one of the most controversial elements.



And one of the most practical difficulties if they were to have forced people who had gone to these areas to demonstrate that they weren't terrorists. It's very hard to prove a negative, that's one of the things that lawyers were objecting to.



So this seems to be a more straightforward way to do it, and one that's likely to be politically more successful.



Listen to her interview with The World Today here. We saw earlier this month that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General George Brandis ... explained their plans on this.But they didn't give us utter clarity on exactly how that would happen, and we haven't yet seen the draft legislation. And that's why there's been some confusion and there's been a lot of criticism so far from legal experts, lawyers groups.What we're seeing now is the Foreign Minister taking some of the heat out of that by saying that it won't be a reversal of the onus of proof.I think it paves the way for the Government to be able to get these measures through the Parliament in a more straightforward way, because it would take out one of the most controversial elements.And one of the most practical difficulties if they were to have forced people who had gone to these areas to demonstrate that they weren't terrorists. It's very hard to prove a negative, that's one of the things that lawyers were objecting to.So this seems to be a more straightforward way to do it, and one that's likely to be politically more successful.

"If they don't then our authorities will need to prove that they don't."

Director-general of ASIO David Irvine, who will step down from the role next month, would not say whether it was his preference to place the onus of proof on the alleged offender.

But he indicated general support for the Government pursuing the option.

"I think it is reasonable, where the Government is seeking to protect people from travelling overseas into conflict zones, to fight, to kill and so on in the brutal way we have seen, that the Government explore all relevant options that can be deployed to prevent that sort of thing happening," he told the National Press Club.

Greens spokesman Scott Ludlam says the comments are a "direct contradiction" to the previous announcement.

"This is the problem with doing national security policy by press conference and thought bubble is that you end up with these kind of contradictory statements," he said.

"If the Government has changed it's mind on that I would welcome that but I would need to see an actual bill, preferably an exposure draft."

At the time of the announcement, Senator Brandis also said that a person who travelled to a designated area "would in the ordinary way in which criminal defence works have an evidential onus to demonstrate that innocent ground was available to them".

A similar "evidential onus" already exists in some laws relating to counter-terrorism laws, treason, forgery and possessing child pornography material.

The new law is part of a series of legislative changes the Government is introducing to target Australians who travel overseas to fight with terrorist organisations.

The Government says about 160 Australians are currently fighting with, or assisting, terrorist groups in the Middle East.

The Opposition has given broad support to the changes but says it will wait to see the legislation.

"When it comes to national security, Labor sees this as a matter above politics," Labor leader Bill Shorten said.

"Clearly we want to make sure that the liberties of Australians are protected, but we also have a job to do here about the nation of Australia to protect the security of Australians."

Topics: terrorism, federal-government, government-and-politics, defence-and-national-security, australia

First posted