Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. I would like to start by congratulating the member for Ryan for that wonderful speech and I would like to associate myself with every single syllable of that speech. I would also like to make a few comments on some of the contributions by other members to this debate, and I would like to start with the member for Isaacs. I did notice on the speaking list that he was the only member of the opposition listed to speak on this bill. It really makes me wonder if the opposition's heart is really in this. I do note that the member for Melbourne Ports is in the chamber. I congratulate him for also speaking on this particular bill.

The member for Isaacs complained about the coalition's spending cuts in the area of community work. I do not see how any member of the opposition can walk into this chamber with a straight face and talk about the job this coalition government has done on spending cuts. We did not inherit a blank piece of paper. When we came to the Treasury benches we inherited six years of Labor debt and deficit. For six years they simply ran the country at a loss. Every year they spent more money than they have raised in taxes—not because there was a lack of taxation revenue. The problem was their spending, their waste, their mismanagement, the dysfunction—reckless spending on a wasteful scale. We inherited an obligation to pay the interest on that debt. That interest is $13.5 billion every single year. We simply have to find those savings of $13.5 billion, not because we want to, but because we have to. That is an interest bill which this nation has to pay on those six years of Labor debt.

Secondly, we also have a budget that is at least 10 per cent in deficit. The budget we inherited is spending 10 per cent more money than we raise in taxation. When you hear organisations like the ABC complaining and squealing about a 4.6 per cent cut to the funding, when the budget is 10 per cent in deficit, it defies logic. It is a belief in Magic Pudding economics. If the opposition wants to come in here and complain about our cuts, they should at least be honest with the Australian people and admit there is an obligation we have to make cuts to try to balance the budget. If they object to the cuts, they cannot do so without suggesting an alternative cut.

Another thing I would like to raise from the member for Isaacs' speech is that he impugned the motives of some of the members of the coalition on the basis of free speech. There is an argument in favour of free speech that the best way to free up speech—to get away from some of those restrictive covenants in the antidiscrimination acts—and that is the best way to defeat bigotry and racism. Shine a torch on it; let it come out from under the mat; defeat it with arguments and logic; and ridicule those who make these arguments in favour of bigotry and racism. That is the best way. The alternative way to try to suppress the discussion is through government legislation, which simply drives it underground and lets it fester. That has sown the seeds of division in our community. It is a legitimate argument and it is an argument that we will have in the years to come.

The other member who spoke in this to debate was the member from Melbourne in what must truly be one of the most bizarre contributions seen in this chamber in many a day. The member the Melbourne actually put forward the proposition that we are responsible for the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. If we had just let Saddam Hussein carry on in his own merry way and with his own devices and had not taken the steps the Coalition of the Willing did, then somehow Iraq would be this land of milk and honey. It is all the fault of the West. He also insisted that we were somehow responsible for the conflict in Syria. It is probably one of the most bizarre accusations I think I have ever heard in this parliament. He also went on to criticise our current involvement in Iraq. We need to make it very clear: the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people requested our help in Iraq. The reason is that innocent Iraqis, mainly the minority groups, are being subjected to murder, rape and beheadings. The member for Melbourne comes in here and suggests that we should simply turn our backs and ignore the pleas of the Iraqi people, as though it is not our problem. That is not the Australian way and it has never been the Australian way—and I hope it never is. That is because we have known throughout our history that the best way to guarantee the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy in this country and that we enjoy here is to extend those to people who do not enjoy those same freedoms and liberties. That is why we have troops today serving in Iraq.

Back to the substantive sections of legislation. Firstly, we need to realise that the terror threat that we face is real. In my electorate, one of the railway stations that I get to go to and hand out things in the morning is called Holsworthy railway station. It is one of the busiest railway stations in south-west Sydney. I must admit, I find one of the enjoyable jobs, as member of parliament, to go to a railway station, wish people good morning on their way to work and hand them a piece of literature, whether it is about a community event or one of the coalition's policies. That is because several thousand of those commuters head into the city every day, head back at the end of a day's work and head off to their homes in south-west Sydney.

But in 2009, some of the people who travel from Sydney city to get off at Holsworthy railway station actually did so—next door is the Holsworthy Army Barracks—and they were not going back to their homes or their families. They were actually staking out the base to see what the access points were. Their plan was to take automatic weapons onto that base and to kill as many Australian citizens as they possibly could. It would not have necessarily only been soldiers. That base is frequented by many local people; families go there to visit their loved ones and contractors go there. Builders, plumbers, tilers and landscapers are all there. They all would have been subject to this terror attack that was thankfully thwarted by our intelligence agencies.

I think the words of the trial judge were most enlightening. It was Justice Betty King. She said this upon sentencing these people:

The fact that Australia welcomed all of you and nurtured you and your families is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame, that this was the way you planned to show your thanks.

This goes sadly to the idea that somehow you can rationalise with these people and that you can somehow talk them out of it. When they become radicalised, there is simply no turning back. It is simply a death sentence for those people and we need to give our anti-terrorism organisations here and our security agencies every single thing that they ask for, because we know this threat is real.

We have seen this threat recently with the attacks on the Canadian parliament and the attacks in the UK. We saw the recent arrests here in south-west Sydney, in parts of the electorate that I represent, where the plan was to kidnap an innocent citizen off the streets at random and behead them. This is what we have to deal with in our society. This is why legislation such as this that we have before us today is so important. When our security agencies and our intelligence agencies come to us and they say they need these extra provisions and they need this extra laws, we as members of parliament—whose first and foremost job is to protect Australian citizens and to protect our country—must listen to them. That is what the coalition government has done and that is why we have this legislation before us today.

To the specifics of the bill, there are three main areas that the amendments address: firstly, enhancing the controlling order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broad range of individuals who are of security concerns and to streamline the application process; secondly, facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, in supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force military operations; and, thirdly, enhancing the arrangements for the provisions of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory duties.

This is most important legislation. There are some arguments about what the safeguards are. That is correct; we need to make sure that we are balancing the rights of citizens against their rights for protections. I believe that in this bill we get it right. We keep the existing control regime, which is subject to significant safeguards and oversight mechanisms, including the need to obtain both the Attorney-General's consent and a court order. Those applications will still apply. The bill will improve the operational administrative safeguards and still require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the control-order regime specific to the reference to safeguards. All the existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 will continue to apply, including in relation to amendments to better facilitate ASIS assistance to the Australian Defence Force.

In conclusion, the measures in this bill will ensure that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the necessary capability to operate effectively in the contemporary security environment that we face. We must admit that it is a challenging environment. We wish our security agencies the best and we know they have a difficult job ahead of them in the years to come. We wish them success. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context