Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014. This is the third bill introduced since mid-2014 that is part of a series of reforms that this government has brought to our national security framework and counter-terrorism laws. These have emanated from a number of threats and the things that we have seen overseas in Syria and Iraq with ISIL. A number of other speakers have touched on those well, so I shall not recount those any further. The end result of all of that is that it has ultimately led to a raising of the National Terrorism Public Alert level to high. This level of threat assessment communicates the fact that we now view that it is likely that there could be an attack on Australian soil. I think, in that context, it is the right context to consider these bills, as well as the others that have passed this House.

As I said at the outset, this is largely as a result of the events in the Middle East that have activated people here at home who support the extremism propagated by the ISIL militants in Iraq and Syria. It has been reported that there are at least 70 Australians currently in Iraq and Syria fighting with these terrorist organisations. When this is combined with supporters who assist through activities such as recruitment and funding, this number jumped to about 150 in June, earlier this year, and to about 185 today. The House would be well aware that we have already passed legislation designed to stop Australians fighting in overseas conflicts, to make it easier for the government to cancel passports and to allow authorities to declare some conflicts as no-go zones for Australian travellers. What we now seek to do with this legislation is address the urgent operational needs identified by our intelligence, Defence and law enforcement agencies.

I think it is worthwhile to provide some context to our reforms, so I thought I would recap some of the events that have led us to where we are today.

On the morning of 18 September 2014 police carried out one of the biggest counter-terrorist operations in the nation's history, with over 800 heavily armed officers targeting households in the cities of Sydney and Brisbane. Twenty-five homes were raided after the interception of a phone call, 15 people were detained, and one person was charged with terrorism offences.

One of the homes was located in my electorate of Forde in the suburb of Boronia Heights. I pay due credit to my community, which has some 215 different cultures, for the way it handled this news and, equally, I pay credit for the way the Australian Federal Police and the Queensland Police Service have handled this sensitive matter so professionally. It is instructive to note that a few days later, on 24 September, TheCourier-Mail reported that the gentleman arrested at Boronia Heights had a plan—an alleged plan—to seek to behead a government official. The man has, ultimately, been charged with preparations for incursions into foreign states with the intention of engaging in hostile activities, and with recruiting persons to join organisations engaged in those hostile activities.

We should not forget the attack on the police officers in Victoria. To date our police and intelligence services have been very proactive in ensuring they deal with these threats before any actual harm occurs. As the previous speaker has rightly pointed out, it is incumbent upon governments and upon us as members of parliament to work with our law enforcement agencies to ensure, where possible, this does not occur. Therefore, it is important that we stay vigilant and calm and allow the security agencies and police to do their jobs, and assist them when weaknesses are identified in the system.

We know how random these attacks can be, having witnessed the horrific random attack in Victoria and, equally, in the Canadian parliament and on Canadian soldiers. It certainly felt very close to home when we heard the devastating news of Corporal Nathan Cirillo, the Canadian soldier on ceremonial sentry duty at the Canadian War Memorial, being fatally shot on 22 October this year. There was vision of the gunman running through the parliament of Canada in a shootout whilst members were barricading themselves inside the chamber. Thankfully, any attempts to claim further human life during this attack were unsuccessful. There was another incident outside of the parliament, when a soldier was killed in a hit-and-run accident.

All of this serves to remind us of the necessity to be vigilant and the necessity to ensure that the laws and frameworks we have in this country are adequate for what our law enforcement agencies are required to do to protect the Australian community. The incident in Canada obviously promoted a renewed focus on the security in Parliament House here, and I would like to thank those involved for adopting the appropriate measures to seek to prevent an attack on this Parliament House.

I would like to reflect more broadly in this debate by addressing some of the comments made by Canadian academic, Salim Mansur, who wrote about the issues that we are talking about today in quite a bit of detail. More broadly, he touched on what we are facing globally with the Islamic threat. In an article on the Gatestone Institute website on 29 September, Mr Mansur stated:

Broadly speaking … the struggle within Islam is between Muslims who embrace the values of the modern world in terms of freedom, individual rights, gender equality and democracy on the one side, and Muslims opposing these values and insisting on a Sharia-based legal system on the other … any Muslim who even questions this version of Islam they refer to as a heretic or, worse, an apostate to be killed.

I am sad to say that we have seen that graphically portrayed through the social media avenues that the ISIL terrorists have used. Mansur went on to state:

For Muslims who embrace modernity, Islam is a matter of personal belief, not a political system …a reformed Islam … greatly desired and sought after by swelling numbers of Muslims … cannot succeed without the support of non-Muslims.

That is why we all need to work together to support the Muslims in our community who want to see a brighter, better future for their children.

These counter-terrorism laws, in part, are designed to do that. They are designed, in conjunction with the other bills that have passed this House, to ensure that we have the capacity through our law enforcement agencies to identify those who would seek to radicalise young Muslim men, in particular. This bill forms part of the government's comprehensive response to the heightened security threat, both internationally and at home. It particularly responds to the threat posed by Australians participating in, and supporting, foreign conflicts, or undertaking training with extremist groups. It will improve the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond to these threats through necessary amendments to national security legislation to address limitations identified in the course of recent operations.

These operations include the deployment of the Australian Defence Force to undertake military operations against the ISIL terrorist organisation in Iraq and the recent Operation Appleby, which disrupted an alleged terrorist attack in Sydney. The amendments address three key areas by (1) enhancing the control order regime to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern and to streamline the application process; (2) facilitating the Australian Secret Intelligence Service supporting and cooperating with the Australian Defence Force on military operations; and (3) enhancing the arrangements for the provision of emergency ministerial authorisations to intelligence agencies to undertake activities in the performance of their statutory functions.

Contrary to some inaccurate media reporting, the amendments will not—I say again: they will not—enable ASIS to kill Australians or others. There is no change to the existing limitation under section 6(4) of the IS Act, which states that ASIS must not plan for, or undertake, activities that involve paramilitary activities or violence against the person or the use of weapons other than in accordance with the act by staff members or agents of ASIS. The role of ASIS is to provide intelligence support to the ADF. The ADF is providing military support in Iraq at the request and behest of the Iraqi government. Its role is to train the Iraqi military in their fight against terrorist organisations, but the ADF does require the intelligence that can be provided by ASIS to ensure, still bound by its rules of engagement, that it has the intelligence necessary to conduct operations in an efficient and effective manner. This has been developed in consultation with the Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department to ensure compliance with Australia's international law obligations.

As I have touched on, it is incumbent on all of us in this House to ensure that we provide a framework in which our law enforcement agencies can carry out their duties of protecting this great country. I think we should be very proud of what we have achieved in Australia and that the multitude of cultures represented in our community today live peacefully and in harmony with each other and add to the rich tapestry that is this great country.

In conclusion, the security and safety of all Australians is paramount. We as a government will continue to work with our intelligence and security agencies to ensure that it continues to be. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context