Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. The bill provides important measures that will enhance the capability of Australia's law enforcement, intelligence and border protection agencies to protect Australia from the threat posed by returning foreign fighters and those individuals within Australia who support foreign conflicts in general.

Make no mistake: the risk posed by returning foreign fighters is one of the most significant threats to Australia's national security in recent years. We have had a clear indication of this, and that was evidenced on 12 September when, on advice from security and intelligence agencies, the Prime Minister raised the national terrorism public alert level from medium to high. This is the first time in Australia's history that the alert has been raised to high.

The Syria and Iraq conflicts have changed the terrorist threat environment, providing a significant opportunity for Australians to travel overseas and develop the necessary capability to undertake terrorist acts. In addition to this increased capability, operational agencies are concerned that Australian foreign fighters will return further radicalised and hardened by their experiences in fighting overseas conflicts. The government has an obligation to the Australian community to prevent the creation of a group of Australians who are willing and able to engage in terrorism in Australia, to prevent the recruitment of others to travel overseas to engage in hostile activities, and to prevent revenue raising for terrorist organisations.

As I noted in my opening remarks, this bill has been the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which was excellently chaired by the member for Wannon and supported by his fellow committee members. I thank all members of that committee for their thorough, constructive and bipartisan approach to this task. The government supports each of the committee's recommendations and has moved amendments in the Senate to implement them. Further, in line with the committee's recommendations, the government tabled a replacement explanatory memorandum, further elaborating on the various measures in the bill.

I note the report tabled yesterday by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in part dealt with the committee's consideration on the bill. The Attorney-General responded to a number of issues raised by the committee during the debate in the Senate. Government amendments made to the bill, as well as an elaboration in the revised explanatory memorandum, also addressed a number of the matters raised by the committee. The government is steadfastly committed to protecting the human rights of all Australians who are threatened by home-grown terrorism. The measures contained in this bill are a necessary, proportionate and accountable response to that threat.

I turn now to some of the issues that have been specifically raised in the debate. I thank the opposition for their stated support for this bill and, of course, for the way that they have engaged with the government on it. I want to address some of the issues that were raised by the member for Melbourne, who stated that the bill does not prevent radicalisation. His view seemed to be overall that it takes away from people's rights. But elements of this bill are designed to prevent radicalisation. For example, extending the control order regime to allow controls to be placed on persons who have engaged in foreign fighting is designed, if passed, to disrupt radicalisation. It will do this in a number of ways, including by preventing a foreign fighter from associating with others in a recruitment group and by preventing them from doing certain things.

In addition, enhancing Australia's border security will assist in disrupting radicalisation. It will do this by ensuring recruiters, facilitators and others of security concern cannot enter or, in cases, leave Australia. But the member for Melbourne is correct if he means that this bill is not the primary means of disrupting radicalisation of vulnerable youth. The government has committed millions of dollars—in fact, $13.4 million—to design programs that prevent radicalisation and assist in the community. We believe this is the most appropriate way to deal with the victims of radicalisation.

The member for Denison echoed some of the same concerns that were raised by the member for Melbourne. Specifically, this bill does not change the criminal prosecution or court process. The courts must be satisfied to the same level that has been the case forever within our judicial system.

I would like to specifically address the allegation that the member for Denison made that somehow the government are using the deterioration in the security environment to achieve certain ends—that somehow we would be using this heightened security threat to change and reduce freedoms in Australia in a way that would be negative to the Australian population. I can assure the member and everyone in Australia that that is not the case. We think very carefully about expanding the power of the state. We think very carefully about it indeed. Most members on this side of the House—in fact, I suspect, most members in this House full stop—have not come into the parliament to expand the powers of the state unnecessarily. But I think that all Australians expect their federal government to respond as appropriate to what is a deteriorating security situation. We are doing that, and we are doing that following the advice that we get from the Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement agencies, and we are doing that following the advice we get from ASIO and other intelligence agencies. Contrary to what seems to be the case in some of the opposition to this bill, the idea that these agencies somehow want rampant powers to go about doing their job, and trampling on the rights of Australians, is just not true.

My experience with the intelligence community and certainly with the law enforcement community is that they are very judicious about what they ask government to do and are very conscious of trampling on the rights and freedoms of Australians. This bill and the prescriptions within it are based on their advice. I assure you they do take these matters into account. It is not my experience since we have come to government that these agencies somehow just want to consistently expand their powers. They are very conscious of their role and of the need to have appropriate oversight of their functions. I can assure members that the government and the agencies take that into account when formulating legislation such as this.

I thank all members who have participated in this debate. In particular, I thank my colleagues for their support for these important reforms and I thank those in the opposition who have expressed support for these important reforms. This bill has a direct impact on the ability of our law enforcement, intelligence and border protection agencies to protect the Australian public. That remains one of the most fundamental roles of the Commonwealth. It is one that we will continue to take seriously. If we believe that the security situation warrants it we will change the legislative environment to ensure the security of all Australians.

See this speech in context