|
Footnotes
Chapter 1 Introduction
[1]
The Attorney-General
introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorist Organisations) Bill in 2003.
The purpose of this bill was to revisit the proscription regime and to
reinstate the provisions removed by Senate amendment in 2002. This effectively
reintroduced the proscription power of the Attorney-General and severed the
connection between listing and the UN Security Council. The amendments also
required that there be consultation with the Leader of the Opposition prior to
the listing of an organisation, and it introduced a delisting provision by
which an individual or organisation might make an application to the Minister
to the effect that it no longer is directly engaged in, preparing, planning,
assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act. The Minister is
required to consider such applications. The delisting provision is not subject
to parliamentary review and it is not a disallowable instrument. The amendment
also inserted a review mechanism for both individual listings and for the
listing process itself. This provision, 102.1A, enabled the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD (now the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Intelligence and Security) to review a regulation as soon as possible after the
making of the regulation and report the Committee’s comments and
recommendations to Parliament before the end of the applicable disallowance
period.
[2]
Private hearing transcript.
[3]
Private hearing transcript.
[4]
Attorney-General’s Department submission No 2.
[5]
Criminal Code Act 1995, section 102.1(2).
[6]
‘Review of the listing of six terrorist organisations’,
Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD, March 2005, p.20.
[7]
Criminal Code Act 1995, section 102.2
[8]
Criteria given at a hearing on 1 February 2005. The last factor was seen
as an exclusionary factor.
[9]
Australian Strategic Policy Institute ‘Local Jihad: Radical Islam and
terrorism in Indonesia’, September 2005, p.55.
Chapter 2 The Proposed Re-listings
[1]
Subsection 102.1(2) of Division 102, Subdivision A of the Criminal Code.
[2]
Confidential exhibit, ASIO, tabled 1 February 2005.
[3]
Private hearing transcript.
[4]
Private hearing transcript.
[5]
Private hearing transcript.
[6]
Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), page 1 of
12, http://jtic.janes.com.
[7]
International Crisis Group: Asia Report No.110, Philippines Terrorism:
The Role of Militant Islamic Converts, December 2005, page 1.
[8]
Private hearing transcript.
[9]
International Crisis Group: Asia Report No.110, Philippines Terrorism:
The Role of Militant Islamic Converts, December 2005, page 8.
[10]
O’Brien, N., ‘Wanted terrorist killed in shootout’, The
Australian, 14 September 2006. (The reports of Patek’s death, as referred
to in the title of this article, were later proven to be incorrect).
[11]
Robinson, L., ‘Pentagon’s secret plan to defeat the terrorists’, The
Weekend Australian, 9 September 2006.
[12]
Private hearing transcript.
[13]
Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Harakat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), page 1
of 5, http://jtic.janes.com.
[14]
Private hearing transcript.
[15]
Private hearing transcript.
[16]
Attorney-General’s Department submission No 1, statement of reasons, page
2.
[17]
Attorney-General’s Department submission No 1, statement of reasons, page
2.
[18]
Australian Strategic Policy Institute ‘Local Jihad: Radical Islam and
terrorism in Indonesia’, September 2005, p.55.
[19]
Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Group Islamique Armée (GIA), page 7
of 10, http://jtic.janes.com.
[20]
Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Group Islamique Armée (GIA), page 4
of 10, http://jtic.janes.com.
[21]
Private hearing transcript.
[22]
Attorney-General’s Department submission No 1, statement of reasons, pages
2-3.
[23]
Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, Groupe Salafiste pour la
Prédication et le Combat (GSPC), pages 2-3 of 9, http://jtic.janes.com.
[24]
Attorney-General’s Department submission No 1, statement of reasons, page
1.
Back to top
|