Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is difficult to comprehend the extraordinary pain and suffering that attends on an act of terrorism, but worse still are the after effects on those who have been injured or left behind. An act of terrorism is an event that no-one wants to remember but is almost impossible to forget. No-one can ever forget the terror and trauma of the Lockerbie bombing, the Twin Towers, Bali, the London bombing and so on.

Quite rightly, in considering this bill before us today we need, as a caring nation, to view those who have suffered the tortures and the after effects of terrorism with immense compassion and care. Terrorism is a crime directed not at individuals but at the state, at a religion or at a targeted movement. But, sadly, individuals—although they are not the targets—are always the victims. It leaves victims with horrific burns, irreparable damage to their limbs, shock, trauma and—the most debilitating of all—the ongoing psychological damage and impact on one's life.

The images of 9/11 are ingrained in our psyche—the horror of the first explosion and then the concertinaing of the upper storeys of the buildings onto the lower storeys, creating an almost unimaginable maelstrom of fire, smoke, debris and dust. Ten Australians are known to have died in the Twin Towers in 2001 in New York. Overall, it claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people.

Closer to home, in Bali on 12 October 2002, in the tourist district of Kuta, an attack, claimed to be the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of Indonesia, claimed the lives of 202 people, including 88 Australians and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 240 people were injured. There is no question that that event was aimed at Australia and Australians, as well as encompassing citizens of countries with whom we are normally allied, including Great Britain, Canada, the US and New Zealand. There we saw firsthand some of the horrific affects of the explosion, in particular the burns victims who were distributed to hospital burns units across Australia. Many of them came under the care of our best doctors, including specialists like Fiona Wood.

In 2005 four suicide bombers struck in central London. That occurred on Thursday, 7 July, killing 52 people and injuring more than 770. Once again, scenes of devastation and injured people, many suffering horrific burns, were broadcast around the world.

But terrorism can take many forms—not always horrific events on a grand scale. There are those of a more targeted nature, for example roadside bombs and booby-trapped vehicles. This came home very clearly to me in 2008, when one of my own constituents, photojournalist Nigel Brennan, was kidnapped in Somalia and held hostage for 462 days. He and Canadian journalist Amanda Lindhout were held in isolation, in a tiny room, often in complete darkness. After an escape attempt Nigel was tortured and shackled until he and Amanda were eventually released, 10 months after that event.

It is very clear that this bill we are considering today has the capacity to determine that any event, large or small, can, in the right circumstances, qualify as an act of terrorism. In Section 35B—Declared overseas terrorist act—subsection (1) provides the Prime Minister may declare in writing that a terrorist act that occurs outside Australia is a 'declared overseas terrorist act'. The bill has a fair degree of bipartisan support, and one would hope that both sides of politics would exercise their discretion with decency and compassion and not lay down prescriptive guidelines for the minister of the day that would impede his or her discretion or limit our generosity as a nation. A kidnapping, where perhaps the major damage has been psychological, should not be excluded from the intent of this bill.

The government bill seeks to provide for the Australian victims of overseas terrorist acts compensation payments comparable to those received by domestic victims of crime under the state and territory victims-of-crime schemes. The bill prescribes a payment of up to $75,000, subject to certain conditions. These include the nature, duration and impact of the injury or disease; the likelihood of future loss, injury or disease; circumstances in which the injury or disease was incurred; the nature of the relationship between the primary and secondary victim; whether there are other persons who have made a claim; whether there is agreement by claimants on the amount that should be paid to each; whether there was an adverse Australian government travel advisory in existence; whether the person was directed not to go to the place where the attack occurred; and whether there are other payments from the Commonwealth, state, territory or a foreign country's government or another person or entity. The Australian government has assisted Australian victims of terrorism in the past by providing them with medical and evacuation support, consular assistance and assistance with funeral costs and other expenses on an ex gratia basis. It was in this context that the government commended to the House this Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas ) Bill 2011, building on the work of the Leader of the Opposition and his private member's bill titled the Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010. The purpose of the opposition leader's private member's bill was to provide additional financial support of up to $75,000 for Australians who are affected by terrorism while they were overseas.

However, the bill we are discussing today is not necessarily retrospective. In fact, there is a line in the sand from the time it receives assent. It could therefore leave a victim of, say, the Bali bombings and other past terrorist acts without any financial support from this scheme. Some might argue that there were ex gratia opponents. On the other hand there are probably still people out there who could well do with amounts of up to $75,000. We just do not know.

In the coalition's view it would be extremely disappointing if the victims of the two Bali bombings, the two Jakarta bombings, the London bombing and September 11 were not able to access compensation. Further, the bill does not apply solely to the primary event. The bill makes it clear that secondary health problems arising from the initial terrorism event can qualify for ongoing treatment provided the total expenses are contained within the $75,000 limit. For example, if someone had their arms and legs bashed up in some explosion or event and then at a later date was to suffer other problems—such as arthritis, or something of that nature which was directly attributable—they would be covered. Even in that circumstance this bill does not apply retrospectively.

Despite these reservations this bill has a lot to commend it. It would be a shame to walk away from an opportunity to put an additional mantle of safety around injured Australians. As the then Attorney-General Robert McClelland said in his second reading speech:

Terrorism is an unpredictable and stateless phenomenon. It can strike almost anybody, in any place and at any time.

It is best, then, that we are ready, and it is in that spirit that I commend the bill.

See this speech in context