Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to follow the member for Berowra, who has previously served as minister responsible for this area. I think it is very salient that the member for Berowra, with all his years of service, has stated that he has never heard a more ridiculous argument pertaining to intelligence and security than that made by the member for Melbourne. I heard the member for Melbourne's contribution. Given the subject matter of the bill before us today, I think it is unwise for the member for Melbourne to prattle on incessantly about freedoms and rights. Government has an exclusive monopoly on the right to use force, specifically to protect us from terrorists and criminals. That exclusive monopoly is something that we voluntarily grant to our police, our intelligence agencies and our defence forces for the specific purpose of keeping our society safe. So it is fundamental misunderstanding by the member for Melbourne to question the whole purpose of having such legislation and the whole purpose of having frameworks around that exclusive monopoly on the right to use force. We have to have a framework. All the government is doing—supported by the opposition in a unanimous and bipartisan way—is framing, recasting and updating the legislation to ensure that our intelligence services can keep pace, in a fast-moving world, with people who do not respect the rule of law, with organisations who have no regard for our rights and liberties. The member for Melbourne might pause and reflect on the fact that these organisations and these people have no regard for the rule of law, or the rights and liberties of other human beings, regardless of their description. If the member for Melbourne really thought about it, he might understand that this legislation is not just necessary; it is a vital to protecting Australia and its people, our rule of law, our human rights and our right to liberty. His argument is completely false, completely negative and completely destructive of the whole framework of our society. It could be that he is signing up to become an anarchist as well as a Green!

The government, with this bill, is making some minor amendments, in a package of amendments, to the Intelligence Services Act and to the Criminal Code. They are amendments I strongly support. They are sensible. They have been the subject of a review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and have received unanimous endorsement by the committee. The committee has made 16 recommendations, including, importantly, that the whole bill be passed. The reason we have members of the calibre of the member for Wannon and the member for Holt, who are from different political parties and have different points of view on matters of national debate, as Chair and Deputy Chair of a committee of this importance is that we need a constructive working relationship with a view to improving the quality of the legislation—and that is exactly what has happened; the government has adopted all of the 16 unanimous recommendations of the committee.

This legislation has the support of all representatives of the Australian people—149 out of 150—except for the member for Melbourne. Given that the member for Melbourne represents a major metropolitan area which could one day be the subject of an attempted attack, he should seriously revisit his view on this bill. He should read each of the recommendations carefully, think about the purpose of this legislation and come back in here and reconsider his view—which I am sure he will not do.

There are some concerns out there more generally about counter-terrorism legislation, although broadly speaking this bill has the endorsement of almost all of us in Australia. Having recently seen Operation Appleby in Sydney—I come from Sydney myself—we understand from the experience of disrupting that alleged terrorist attack in Sydney that further measures are needed that will allow the Federal Police to request, and the court to issue, a control order in relation to those who enable and those who recruit. Specifically, we would be moving with the experience of these operational requirements identified by the law enforcement agencies themselves as they pursue these people on our behalf.

It is important to ensure that everybody who examines these matters understands that the existing safeguards and oversights will remain in these bills. In my view, and in the view of the bipartisan and unanimous committee, these mechanisms are very strong. The strong oversight mechanisms are also going to apply to the arrangements for emergency ministerial authorisations—calming, I think, many of the fears and unwarranted criticisms that have been received in relation to this legislation. We know that ministers have to be notified within eight hours where an agency head has granted an emergency authorisation. Where a minister has provided an oral emergency authorisation, a written record of this decision must be made within 48 hours. The Inspector-General, of course, will provide close oversight of all the emergency authorisations. It is important that members of this House understand that the parliamentary joint committee will be notified of all emergency authorisations. Given that it is a bipartisan committee and has serious-calibre members of parliament on it, you can be absolutely confident that these safeguards and oversights are completely appropriate and current.

Given the circumstances that have been highlighted by so many members—the development of terrorism; the emergence of the evil movement ISIS, or Daesh; the absolutely disturbing reports that have come from our law enforcement agencies, including the successful prosecution of people for terrorism offences; and more alleged terrorism offences by people in our own community—it is completely appropriate that these amendments come before us today. It is good they have the support of 149 members of the House of Representatives, and hopefully on reflection the member for Melbourne and the Greens can understand that it is the role of parliament and the function of the government to provide security as its absolute core in the protection of our rights and liberties, and these amendment bills enhance and strengthen the government's role in protecting our community.

See this speech in context