Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make comments on the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. Just last week at the luncheon for the Indonesian President I was having a discussion with some of my colleagues from the other side of the chamber. Someone—I think it was the member for Deakin—said to me that we all remember where we were on September 11. Certainly, I remember it very clearly. I was still an Army officer at that point—the highest ranked member of the regular Army with headquarters 13 Brigade over in Perth, the Army Reserve brigade. It was a Tuesday night. It was a parade night for the Army reservists so we were all there. I was sitting in my office doing some paperwork when one of the corporals came into my office and said, ‘Sir, someone has just flown an aircraft into one of the towers of the World Trade Centre.’ That was a little bit on the surprising side. Apparently the event had happened several minutes before. I got up and I walked into the room where there was a television playing. Most of the headquarters staff were gathered around the television. There was commentary on the TV about what had happened and then, right in front of the cameras, the second aircraft flew into the second tower. For those reasons a lot of people remember where they were on that day. America had had issues in the past, but this was such a significant, high-profile event that had happened. I think it really shook the world in a lot of ways. It shook the Western world in a lot of ways. I think that we need to look at the actions that took place after that through that context.

11:14:53

Here in Australia we have to remember that it was just the year before that we had the Olympics. I worked on this security operation when I was in what we called JTF 112—that is, Joint Task Force 112. It was Joint Task Force Gold, the non-anti-terrorist part of the Defence support of the Olympics. In that task force I was involved with the bomb search and other elements. I know what happened during the Olympics and how trouble-free the Olympics were. There was a lot of talk beforehand about the possibilities of sarin gas attacks in railway stations and things like that, so a lot of scenarios had been worked through and a lot of effort had been put into the preparations for the Olympics, but it all went off pretty well. Basically they were incident free and certainly terrorist free.

Having gotten that confidence and certainty here in Australia, just a year and a bit later we saw such a dramatic attack on what most would describe as our lead ally. It was a dramatic attack on the No. 2 city in their nation and I think it shook a lot of people. When we look beyond September 11 we look to the Bali bombings, the bombings in London and indeed the local threats that have been realised and have come to prosecutions and convictions. I think that these events have sharpened the focus. I know that preventative detention and control orders were a function of the response to September 11. I think a lot of people in this country have a belief that those were essential at the time and that the reaction, whilst significant, was not an overreaction.

Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that the difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes is that democracies put in place laws for the protection of their citizens—I look upon that a little more widely than just the security aspects to include the protection of rights as well—whereas the laws of authoritarian regimes seem to be there to protect the regimes and control the citizens. I do not think we need to back away from what we have done in the past or to think any less of ourselves because of the actions that needed to be taken after September 11 and that have been reinforced in a lot of ways through the threats that we have seen realised around the world in the years since. Nevertheless, these laws should not be undertaken lightly. As a democracy, we need to keep reviewing these sorts of laws and we need to be prepared to critically examine what we have done in the past to make sure that the rights of our citizens are protected in congress with the safety and security of our people and our institutions.

We heard from some very good speakers in this parliament—and they are all very good speakers—including the member for Isaacs, the member for Pearce and the member for Kooyong. On this side, the members for Pearce and Kooyong have a history of involvement in this area. I do not see eye to eye with them on all matters within this parliament, but I appreciate their history and their advocacy for independence and openness regarding these matters. I still endorse what happened before and the actions of the previous government to put in place the safeguards to look after our citizens because I think the threats were there at the time. I think the threats remain and we always need to be on guard against them. But we should never be worried about trying to conceal those laws or protect them from scrutiny because when we look at the threat and the laws that were put in place those laws can stand up.

I welcome this bill and the provisions for a national security legislation monitor. As I said, I pay tribute to the member for Kooyong and the member for Pearce for their advocacy and their putting this up towards the start of 2008. I also acknowledge the efforts of Senators Troeth and Humphries in the Senate to bring these matters to the fore and their advocacy to increase the clarity, independence and visibility of the laws that have been put in place. After putting down the bills from the member for Kooyong and putting the efforts of Senators Troeth and Humphries to the sword in many respects, I understand that at the end of 2008 the government announced that they would take up this matter of having a monitor, and that is good. However, as the member for Kooyong said, what the government brought forward in the first version of this bill would not provide this independence and scrutiny. It was going to be pretty much a government executive directed control of the reviewer, so it is hardly right to suggest that that would be independence. Following the amendments, we have seen the removing of the requirement for the monitor to be subject to the direction of the executive and the Prime Minister.

Of course, the purpose of this bill is to appoint a national security legislation monitor who will assist ministers to ensure that Australia’s counterterrorism national security legislation is effective in deterring and preventing terrorism and terrorism related activities which threaten Australia’s security, is effective in responding to terrorism and terrorism related activities, is consistent with Australia’s international obligations—including human rights obligations—and contains appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals.

I look forward to the progress of this bill and I look forward to this bill passing in the amended form, because I think that this will bring the scrutiny, the openness and the independence to security and antiterrorism legislation that this country should have. I say again that in my view we do not need to withdraw, back away or apologise for what had to happen at the time. We had been shaken. We had come from a certain level of confidence and security in this country with the Olympics, then we progressed roughly to September 11 and then bombings in other places around the world—including direct attacks on Australians. I think we should always be prepared to put in place laws to protect our citizens. But we should never be afraid of the scrutiny that goes with it.

I welcome the amended version of this bill and I look forward to its passing.

See this speech in context