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

I would like to thank members of parliament for their contributions in this debate on what is a critically important piece of counterterrorism legislation. In particular, I would like to thank the members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, who have made such important contributions that have resulted in recommendations that the government has been pleased to implement through the government amendments that have been moved in the Senate. These amendments are now reflected in this bill, which the House is dealing with today.

As you would be aware, and as noted in the media, we are living in a heightened security threat environment as a result of the continued conflict in Iraq and Syria, and in particular, the threat posed by Australians participating in and supporting these foreign conflicts and Australians who go to these war zones and undertake training with extremist groups.

Sadly, we are also aware that this is not just an Australian problem. It is one shared by many of our partners. We have certainly been very alive, as we have created and crafted our response to this issue in Australia, to what has been happening overseas.

Currently, Australia's domestic counterterrorism legislation has concentrated on those intent on committing acts of terrorism but this bill, very importantly, expands the preventative purposes of the control-order regime to counter this threat to allow the Australian Federal Police to seek control orders in relation to a broader range of individuals of security concern—namely, those who support or facilitate terrorists and foreign fighters.

These amendments respond to law enforcement advice that there are individuals of very serious security concern who are not covered by the existing grounds for making a control order. Some of these people are not directly carrying out acts of terrorism in Australia or hostile activities overseas, but they are providing the necessary support for terrorists and foreign fighters, and their activities facilitate others to engage in terrorism or to fight with these extremist organisations overseas.

I will just turn to some of the specific points that have been made in this debate that I would like to counter—in particular some of the comments that have been made by the member for Melbourne, who noted that this bill will allow controls to be placed on individuals without going through long-standing processes in criminal law. But the control-order regime has actually been in place for 10 years, and this regime responds to extraordinary circumstances of threat to Australia's national security interests.

The expansion of the grounds for obtaining a control order responds to advice from law enforcement that some Australians have taken on roles of supporting and facilitating others to engage terrorism offences or to travel to conflict zones and then to return to Australia with the capabilities acquired from fighting or training with these evil terrorist groups.

From a public safety perspective, the threat posed by these individuals is just as great as the risk posed by those who would directly engage in terrorist acts or foreign incursions. To counter this particular threat, it is therefore rightly appropriate that we expand the preventative purposes of the control order regime.

In his misrepresentation of the control order regime the member for Melbourne linked control orders and the bill to Australia authorising detention of a person, without that person committing an offence. Firstly, control orders do not authorise detention. Secondly, it is astounding that the member for Melbourne and the Greens, if they had their way, would only allow action to be taken after a terrorist act had taken place. It is the first priority of any government to keep its people safe, and this means providing our law enforcement and security agencies with the tools they need to prevent terrorist acts. Control orders, which have only been used twice since 2005, provide the government with such a mechanism.

The bill also amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001, to streamline procedural authorisation requirements for agencies governed by that act to collect intelligence on Australians overseas. This will ensure that our agencies are as agile as they need to be within the contemporary security environment, particularly in emergency circumstances.

A key amendment will be to enhance the ability of ASIS to provide timely assistance to the Australian Defence Force, in support of military operations. After introducing this bill into the Senate, on 29 October, the Attorney-General referred it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, under the very able chairmanship of the member for Wannon, Mr Dan Tehan. They tabled their report on 20 November, and the committee made 16 recommendations, including—and I think very importantly—that this bill be passed. The government has accepted in principle all of the recommendations that were made by the parliamentary joint committee. We recognise the valuable bipartisan work that this committee does. It is a committee that works very well. Again, I acknowledge the very able chairmanship of the member for Wannon, and I thank all of those members on the committee who participated in that inquiry.

I wanted to respond to a couple of other comments that have been made in the course of this debate. I welcome the Labor Party's support for it, but I was disappointed to hear in the debate some inaccurate and misleading comments, particularly in relation to the fact that we had failed to engage the community on some of this legislation. This is simply not true. There has been a very extensive amount of community consultation that has been undertaken by the Prime Minister, by the Attorney-General, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. They have engaged with senior leaders of the Muslim community in Australia. It has also happened on a more informal level when members of our party room were encouraged to go out and talk directly to Muslim communities in their electorates. That is something I certainly did. I know that many other members also took advantage of that opportunity. So I completely reject the idea that we have not effectively consulted with the community. As the Attorney-General has previously said, the purpose of these meetings was specifically to engage the community on the government's intention—to engage with them in a way that makes them partners with the government in seeking to protect their youngsters from being enticed into the snares of terrorist organisations that are engaged in war-fighting in the Middle East. We have certainly been pleased to partner with the community to do all we can to explain the government's intentions here. I think that engagement has been very effective.

This is actually probably a greater level of engagement than would be usual when it comes to government legislation. But of course this is not an ordinary issue. We cannot possibly be effective in our fight against terrorist organisations in snaring our youngsters to go to the Middle East and fight without working in partnership with the community. So we have been very mindful that we need to do that. I think those meetings have been very productive. I am very pleased that the community leaders we met with in Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra actually expressed to the government their appreciation for that level of consultation. They let us know that they wanted to work effectively with us on these difficult issues, and they shared with us their belief that they want the government to keep Australia safe.

I was also disappointed to hear opposition comments about our Countering Violent Extremism program and some allegations that there has been a delay in the rollout of this program. Again, that simply is not true. We do not want to rush the design of this program. It is important that we get it right. The focus of the new CVE program is the $13.4 million investment. We are designing it to intervene to stop young Australians from being radicalised to violent extremism. This is a new program. It builds on research we have undertaken. It has used our experience. Also, very importantly, it has used experience gained overseas, because these are not issues that are unique to Australia. The radicalisation to violence process is unique to each person that undergoes it. This is why we need to design a program that is flexible as well as being effective. It is important that the interventions we undertake through this program actually respond to the individual's needs, and we need to identify the best way to help them.

The Attorney-General's Department has been engaged with world-leading experts and practitioners at both the federal and state level. We have worked very effectively with our partners in this important work. Considerable effort has been undertaken, including extensive consultation with key community stakeholders, state and territory governments and the professional and community sectors.

The next phase of our engagement will be with key communities in the coming weeks. Further information will be made available on the web site livingsafertogether.gov.au, and via an email to those who advise us of their interest.

Other core elements of the government's program include addressing online radicalisation and reducing the impact of terrorists' use of social media, by helping people to develop the digital skills needed to critically assess terrorists' claims and promote alternative and then positive messages online.

I thank all of my colleagues who have participated in this debate and recognise the need for these important reforms. The Abbott government is undertaking a comprehensive review and reform of our national security architecture to ensure that our counterterrorism framework is effective and targeted to our current national security threat, and to make sure that our agencies are supported by the legislative framework we have that enables them to respond to emerging and future security threats. This bill has a direct impact on the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to support our defence force in particular, so that they can continue to protect Australia and Australians. I therefore commend the bill to the House as another part of the arsenal we are providing our agencies with to keep our community safe.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context