Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am not sure if it is a pleasure or not to rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. I think for many of us in this place it is a real challenge. It is a challenge to understand why we are in a situation where we need to be contemplating changes and measures that allow our security, police and defence forces to be able to take such actions. But, nevertheless, this is a real threat and this is the time and the place that we live in. One must believe that there are better times ahead, because if we do not, you really wonder what it is all about.

This is the third bill to be introduced since the middle of 2014 in a series of reforms to national security and counter-terrorism laws. The scope of this bill is a little narrower than the previous two, but the measures are significant. Amendments come in two specific circumstances: experience with the control order regime in recent domestic counter-terrorism operations; and as a result of the deployment of the Defence Force to Iraq to undertake operations against ISIL—the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

I come from a peaceful state, but I feel compelled to make a contribution to this bill, because I have had many constituents raising their concerns with me. In the main, they have maybe not always been instinctively supportive of the party of which I am a member, but have nevertheless been willing to strongly commend the government on the work they are doing in this space. So I feel it behoves me to make a contribution today. I would also like to associate myself with a number of the contributions that have been made by other members: the member for Ryan, in particular, and the member for Hughes. The member for Eden Monaro brought a different context to this, as did the member for Deakin. And the member for Melbourne Ports, as well—acknowledging the interest that he has in the whole area around human rights and so forth.

In preparing for this contribution, I thought it would be best if I first tried to summarise in my own words, in very much a layperson's terms, the measures that we are trying to address through this legislation. I may go into it in a bit more detail later in my contribution, but those people who read this at a later date should be able to get, in a short time, an understanding and a summary of this as it stands.

This bill gives the Australian Federal Police and other agencies a greater capacity to adapt, based on advice that is received from time to time—in essence, as I saw it, to be agile; to be able to respond in a way that is consistent with the enemy that we are dealing with. It is about cooperation between agencies—in particular, ASIS, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and the Australian Defence Force. Indeed, as I mentioned in the preamble, this is about, ultimately, protecting our troops through cooperation between the security and intelligence forces and our defence forces. Thirdly, the bill authorises arrangements for the minister to act in cases of emergency, which arrangements apply to, as I mentioned, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Signals Directorate, and the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation.

Domestically, this bill is about protecting our national borders. It is about supporting our security agencies to better do their job. These agencies very rarely, if ever, ask for additional support. They have far-reaching powers—make no mistake—but they do not ask for provisions unless those provisions are needed. And this is one such moment in history.

This bill is about identifying early indicators to domestic threats, to improve the capacity to identify networks of those who would do us harm, and, indeed, those lone wolf attacks that understandably are more difficult to identify and so are more difficult to protect against in advance of an action occurring. For the man or woman in the street, it is those sorts of acts that are probably as chilling as any we have seen. They really probably substantiate much of this initiative and much of the justification for these additional powers. The bill allows the capacity to detain, and to constrain the movement of, individuals identified as a threat. It makes sense. It is important because it is a challenge—it is a challenge for me; it is a challenge, I think, for most Australians—to raise public awareness, and also to understand that nobody is immune from such threats, notwithstanding the fact that I hope I come from one of the most peaceful places in the world.

Finally, the bill is about collaboration with other countries, our allies, that are all grappling with the same issues. As other speakers have mentioned and as we have heard, there are over 15,000 foreign nationals now ensconced in Iraq and Syria fighting with Daesh, or the Islamic State, as they prefer to be known—residents of Canada, residents of France, citizens of the United Kingdom and citizens of the United States, as well as of Australia. As I mentioned, I felt compelled to make a contribution—and it will be a brief contribution—because, as I say, many Australians have been shocked by the plans, and plans that have been in many cases quite sophisticated, to attack people in this country who they are living side by side with.

May I also just acknowledge this. I did not get to see Q&A on the Monday night when the Attorney-General was single-handedly tasked with appearing on the program, but I managed to see the Attorney-General's contribution a few days later, and I was moved enough to call the Attorney-General just to acknowledge the way that I thought he handled such terribly sensitive and difficult questions. He was respectful at all times to the audience, but there were questions posed by the audience that, if I had been in his shoes, I would have found difficult. I just want to put on the record the very competent, compassionate and considered way in which the Attorney-General conducted himself in that forum.

I am not going to go through the detail of the bill anymore; I have used up a bit more time than I thought. But I will just say, following on from the member for Deakin, that there are things that, as a federal government, are fundamental for us to contemplate. First of all, it is to keep Australians safe. That is the very first thing that we must contemplate every day that we are in this place. It is the fundamental role that we have.

These measures—and I think the Prime Minister has been very much at pains to point this out—are not an attack on any particular religion. These measures are designed to defend Australians, and our Defence forces operating overseas and domestically, against truly evil people that hide behind a cloak of religion in the form of Islam. We should always remember that. Finally, it is so important that the best way that we can respond as Australians is to absolutely go about our business as normal.

I also commend the work of the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, and his committee. I also should acknowledge my colleague from Tasmania, the member for Bass, and the experience that he brings to this place in respect of his service within the Defence Force and his knowledge of counter-terrorism and intelligence. I thank him for walking me through and discussing with me some of the aspects of the bill that are before the House today. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute.

See this speech in context