Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I also thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 and also the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Bill 2010. Before I make my concluding remarks regarding the bill, I will just address some comments that have been raised during the course of what was overall a very constructive debate.

The member for Stirling referred to changes to the definition of a terrorist act and the creation of a terrorist hoax offence in the Criminal Code. The honourable member is correct that these proposals were included in the discussion paper released last year for consultation. However, I should clarify that while the government is still pursuing these amendments they are not included in the bill due to required changes to state and territory referral legislation that are being considered by the states. The process is ongoing and we will look to introduce these amendments in a separate piece of legislation in due course.

The member for La Trobe made some comments about criminal gangs and suggested that the Prime Minister had not been tough on crime. Might I draw the honourable member’s attention to the criminal association offences recently introduced by the government in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2010 and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill (No. 2) 2010 and, indeed, the range of measures in those bills which are now acts of parliament. Also, the member, with respect, should note the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework, which I launched last year. I indicate that Australia, together with attorneys from the United States, Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand, is progressing the fight against organised crime at an international level. The government takes the threat of serious and organised crime very seriously. In addition to those measures, some $14 million has been allocated in this budget to the establishment of a new criminal fusion centre together with $23 million to improve the resources that are available to AUSTRAC to assist in the fight against organised crime.

More broadly addressing issues raised in the debate, I remind the House that the government provided in this current budget $1.1 billion over four years to strengthen Australia’s national security. That is part of a broader package of $4.3 billion in addition to funding incorporating national security, border protection, aviation security and measures in support of Australia’s Defence Force.

The member for Lyne raised more generally that any response to national security must be consistent with and, indeed, underpin the rule of law. In turn, of course, the rule of law is a hollow concept if it is not accessible. That lack of accessibility to redress grievances can itself be a source or cause of alienation of some sectors and individuals in the community, which in turn can be the start of the process of radicalisation. I do not think it is drawing too far a bow to say that the involvement of the government in providing legal services to communities is at the heart of an effective legal system and, indeed, one on which the rule of law is based. In that respect, the federal budget included $154 million for legal assistance services. I am informed that this is the largest and most significant injection of new funding into the legal assistance sector in well over a decade. I am pleased to report to the member for Lyne that the government will be allocating $200,000 per annum over the next three years to assist with the establishment of a community legal centre in the mid-North Coast region.

See this speech in context