Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Sadly, terrorism has become a fact of life throughout the world. Hardly a day passes without a report from some part of the world about an act of terrorism. Terrorism has become the new method of fighting wars by those who do not have the military might to engage in conventional warfare. Until terrorism acts directly affected us, they were just seen as another news report and another statistic. For those affected, however, each report meant lives lost or injured and families left mourning and grieving. The attacks on the twin towers in the US and the bombing in Bali changed all of that because for the first time the American and Australian people were the direct target of a major act of terrorism that had been carefully planned and executed.

For the US, the attack on the twin towers sent shock waves throughout the country and throughout the world because this was the first successful attack against the US on its mainland. That anyone would ever dare to commit such an act was previously unthinkable. That it was possible left people stunned. Yet it was committed and it left New York physically and psychologically devastated. Almost 3,000 lives were lost and a towering physical structure was razed to the ground. The world has been a much different place ever since. I recall a few years ago I listened to an address from Rudy Giuliani, who was the mayor of New York at the time. He talked about his leadership role in that crisis. It provided a terrific insight into just what happened in New York and the response at the time. Sadly the focus on security has by necessity been stepped up to the point that it has become a major cost and inconvenience to society across the world. For Australia, the bombings in Bali sent out a very clear warning: that Australians were not immune from terrorism.

As I am speaking about this motion tonight—and I have not chosen to speak on the motion in remembrance of the 10th anniversary of the Bali bombings—I take this opportunity to acknowledge the families of the 202 people killed in Bali on 12 October as they mark the 10th anniversary of their loss. On 12 October I attended the 10th anniversary service of the Bali bombings here in the Great Hall of Parliament House. It was a very emotional service. As I sat in the service, I reflected back to 10 years ago, reliving my recollection of events at the time. I also tried to imagine what it must have been like for those caught in the bombing and how it must have been for their families then and over the past ten years. As the images were shown on the screen of so many people looking so happy and full of life, I thought about Angela Golotta. Angela was one of the three South Australians killed in Bali with Josh Deegan and Bob Marshall being the other two. She was in Bali with her parents, Tracey and John, and with her brother, Michael. I have known the family for a long time. Angela was five days short of her 20th birthday when she was killed. For her family, the 10th anniversary would have been a very difficult time. I quote from a memorial about her from her grandparents that was published in the Advertiser on 12October. It said:

She was ambitious, energetic and with a loving and caring nature. A passionate animal lover. The years have passed but our grief remains. However, we still hold in our hearts happy memories of the most loving and generously caring of girls, an innocent victim who did not deserve to die in this tragic manner.

I have also spoken at length to John Golotta, her father, about events in Bali and for his family since. John, Tracey and Michael had been at the Sari Club with Angela. They left shortly before the blast. Angela said she would stay on a little longer. The family went back to their hotel not far away. They heard the blast from the hotel and John and Michael raced back to the Sari Club. They were, in fact, the first people to enter what was left of the building. What they saw, what they were confronted with and what they have described to me is, quite frankly, unimaginable. I certainly will not go into it in detail.

I spoke to John earlier today and told him I would be speaking tonight, which brings me to the motion before us. He said to me, 'You never get over what happened. You just learn to live with it.' But he also made a second point. It took a long time before any help arrived at the Sari Club and there was not very much help for the families in the days after the event. His plea to parliament was this: if there was to be a similar event in the future to ensure that we can provide assistance as quickly as possible to those affected. He has little doubt that others would have survived had assistance been made available at the time. But it was not.

Regrettably, no amount of monetary compensation will restore or lessen the loss, pain and suffering caused. I accept, however, that when these tragedies occur, as they did for the Golotta family, it can also create a very serious financial burden on them as well. I understand the purpose of victims of crime compensation. My concern with the motion, however, as it presently stands is twofold. Firstly, picking an event, in this case the September 11 attacks, and backdating the compensation to a fixed date without any rational reason for choosing that period in time, I find difficult to justify. Secondly, as the member for Blair quite rightly pointed out, it makes no provision for assistance already provided, assistance quite rightly provided by this government and the previous government to many of the families on an individual case-by-case basis.

Those are matters that need to be incorporated in the consideration of this kind of motion.

I also note that the attack in Bali and the Twin Towers attack occurred during the time of the previous government. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition as he explained his reasoning as to why nothing was done in terms of providing backdated compensation during that time. I accept that he was genuine in his remarks to the House about that. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the previous government chose not to provide that compensation and perhaps chose not to do so for the reasons that I outlined earlier and which the member for Blair outlined in his remarks to the chamber. Those reasons include that there was assistance provided on a case-by-case basis. I also accept that victims of crime compensation is nothing new.

The states have indeed been providing it for some time throughout Australia and for quite proper reasons. I am aware of that and in fact I have been involved in some cases in which I have tried to assist people to secure some of that compensation. I am also aware that other countries provide victims of crime compensation and compensation directly related to terrorism, including the UK. I heard the Deputy Leader of the Opposition talking about the UK experience. My understanding is—and I stand to be corrected—that it is specific to six particular incidents. Some will argue that that is not right, either. Each jurisdiction will make their own determination about all of these matters, as the US did. Their legislation dates back to 1984, I believe.

These are sensitive matters. We need to ensure that all people are treated equally. They have suffered and grieved enough. Adding to their heartache by having some kind of system in place that does not treat people equally is something that we need to be very sensitive to when we consider motions like the one before the House. I have no doubt that the minister will consider this motion and take on board what the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have said. But, as I have made clear in my remarks, it is a matter that we need to deal with very sensitively.

See this speech in context