Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to see that the minister has taken up the Leader of the Opposition's proposal of compensation to be provided by the federal government to victims of terrorism overseas and also thank him for his acknowledgement of the opposition leader in his reading of the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill 2012. This bipartisan belief in the need to support Australian victims of terrorism highlights the importance of this issue and the struggles such victims face in putting their lives back together.

The aim of terrorism is simple: to destroy people's pursuit of a peaceful life. In order to achieve this, terrorists have engaged in horrific acts of violence and manipulation at unexpected times, particularly over the past decade. They have shifted society's mindset toward the security of everyday life in unimaginable ways. As a nation we must never forget the high price innocent Australians have paid at the hands of terrorists. Although terrorist actions are aimed to send a message to the state and its leaders, it is the innocent individuals within these states who are targeted. However, because of the nature of terrorist attacks, victims can often be left feeling like just a statistic. The numbers of people who are killed or injured in terrorist attacks are what make the news—the statistics, not the names. Whilst no-one would deny the empathy felt for these victims, within our society news is reported through statistics and through the place of an attack which, while shocking, in a sense desensitises us to the suffering and experiences of those who actually live through the attack. Terrorists attack the masses, yet at the end of the day it is the individual and their families who must pick up the pieces. The bill before us recognises this and will go some way toward helping individual victims of overseas terrorist attacks. For many there is no going back to the way that things were. They must rebuild a life for themselves after losing, perhaps, what is the last bastion of innocence: the belief that you are safe. For a terrorism victim and their family the fact that they were part of an attack when simply going about their own business, and knowing that these terrorist groups and the terrorist mentality in general is still out there, would be almost crippling.

These victims need to know that their government supports them, not just on a global stage, not just as a nation opposed to terrorism, but supports them personally and individually. That is what this bill does. It also recognises the suffering caused to the family of the victim of an overseas terrorist attack. The loss of a family member under any circumstances is always distressing. However, for families who lose a close relative overseas the pain caused by knowing that person died away from home in violent and extreme circumstances is truly traumatic.

I would also like to draw attention to another part of the minister's second reading speech. In his speech, the minister drew attention to the Australian victims of terrorist attacks that have occurred overseas during the last decade: September 11 in America, the bombings in London and Madrid and, of course, the terrible loss of Australian lives in Bali. The minister has said that the government recognises the suffering of these victims, yet this bill does not apply to those victims.

Regretfully, the government has not given due consideration to this bill after it was introduced to the House in February last year as a private member's bill sponsored by the Leader of the Opposition. The coalition was still left waiting until even as late as today as to whether the government would include retrospective application of this bill. They had more than a year to make that decision. It is a shame that they have come to a decision not to apply these measures retrospectively.

I know that the government has at times accused the coalition of applying a blanket opposition to retrospective legislation. This, however, is a simplistic statement to make. We do not support retrospective legislation where it has an adverse effect on society. However, we support responsible policy formulation, and if the circumstances of an issue are so compelling, retrospectivity should be considered. This bill provides such an opportunity. This bill could provide much-needed support and help to Australian victims of past terrorist attacks and their families. Access to a payment such as what this legislation proposes would give these victims additional funds that they undoubtedly need for support, such as the additional counselling that they otherwise not have acquired. In short, a retrospective clause provides a positive benefit to Australians and therefore should be supported. I acknowledge the minister's advice that the Australian government has provided support to Australian victims of terrorism in the past to a value exceeding $12 million. But the extension of support envisaged in this bill to past victims should also be considered.

Since 11 September, 2001 some 300 Australians have been killed or injured in terrorist attacks. We have all stood in this chamber and spoken about the importance of supporting Australian victims of terrorism. Yet with this bill the government is saying that as a nation we are not willing to help those who have suffered in some of the worst terrorist attacks the world has experienced. It makes no sense to me that the government has not made this positive, helpful and necessary legislation retrospective in order to support victims of past terrorist attacks, while it has introduced other retrospective legislation that has had a negative impact on our society and our economy.

The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Paterson have been fighting for this bill since 2009, and I commend the government for taking it up. The intention behind this legislation is admirable, and I thank the minister for incorporating the principles of the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill. But the victims of past terrorist attacks also need our support, just as much as the future ones will, and I implore the government to amend this bill to reflect this.

See this speech in context