Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail

Opened the debate

Sharkie moved amendments to Schedule 9 of the bill to exclude terrorist acts from the discretion allowed under section 19B of the Crimes Act 1914. Sharkie argued that while judicial discretion is generally accepted, it should not apply to heinous crimes like terrorism, drawing a parallel to the mandatory conviction rule for people-smuggling in the Migration Act. Sharkie contended that without a recorded conviction, individuals found guilty of terrorism could obtain clean police checks, potentially allowing them to work in sensitive sectors such as healthcare or the NDIS. Sharkie cited the Bondi attack as evidence that terrorism is a present threat requiring strict legislative responses to ensure public safety.

Government response

Rowland acknowledged the amendments but stated the government would not support them, asserting that the current regime is appropriately balanced. Rowland explained that section 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 requires courts to impose sentences of appropriate severity, considering the nature of the offence, while section 19B allows discharge without conviction only in trivial or extenuating cases. Rowland highlighted that terrorist acts carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and most terrorism offences have a mandatory minimum of six years, making it highly unlikely that a discharge without conviction would ever be deemed appropriate. Rowland noted that no orders under section 19B have ever been made for terrorist acts and indicated that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security would examine these matters.