Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass for moving this important motion, and the seconder of the motion, regarding the Australian government's response to the threat of terrorism, both beyond our borders and at home. We should begin by acknowledging the extraordinary work of the Australian Defence Force and our civilian national security agencies in identifying, attacking and degrading terrorist threats beyond our shores. I recently visited ADF members on deployment in the Middle East region as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, and I saw firsthand the important role that the ADF is playing in the fight against Daesh in Iraq and the ongoing Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

As part of Operation OKRA, the Royal Australian Air Force's Air Task Group is conducting combat and support operations in Iraq within an international coalition working to disrupt and degrade Daesh in Iraq. Around 300 ADF personnel have also been deployed under Operation OKRA as part of Task Group Taji to support the increasingly important international Building Partner Capacity training mission in Iraq. As part of Operation HIGHROAD, ADF members are supporting the NATO led mission, RESOLUTE SUPPORT, to support the Afghan government. Around 400 ADF personnel remain in Afghanistan undertaking this important work. The ADF personnel on these deployments that I met on my recent visit were a credit to themselves and their nation: young, professional men and women focused on performing the tasks that they have been trained for, and keeping a good sense of humour in trying and often dangerous conditions.

As important as these international operations are, however, given the nature of the threat of transnational terrorism, equally important work must be done at home. Regrettably, we have seen firsthand the danger that extremist, radicalised individuals can pose to our community. The opposition has sought to support government initiatives to equip our law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to keep us safe from these threats while also working with communities of people who may be vulnerable to radicalisation. Section 2(b) of this motion notes the Attorney-General's Department has led and implemented constructive initiatives and measures in support of community safety. This is very important and delicate work. As recognised by the Attorney-General's Department, building resilience to violent extremism within vulnerable communities is an ideological battle that requires us to counter the ideological appeals of perverted religious extremists with an alternative ideological proposition.

As the government's Living Safe Together program advocates, we need to convince individuals who are vulnerable to radicalisation that our shared Australian values protect us all. In the words of the Living Safe Together program, 'We can challenge the threat of violent extremism by all working together to ensure that we have a strong and cohesive society where individuals are less vulnerable to ideologies that promote hate and silence.' As Professor Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University, has recently said, 'Inclusiveness is the essential quality of the new Australian security.'

Last week the Prime Minister indicated that he wanted to start a debate about the nature of Australian citizenship. Like the member for Bass, I too spoke about the importance of Australian citizenship in my first speech. I strongly agree that a debate about the meaning of Australian citizenship and its rights and obligations is crucial to our ability to respond to the threat of violent extremism. However, in the same week as the Prime Minister's comments, the member for Dawson told this chamber:

Today's multiculturalism means that the world view and the beliefs that spawn practices like honour killings, child brides and sharia law must be accepted, because they are seen as legitimate values within a particular culture.

These practices are not accepted in Australia and that is why, in the vanishingly small number of cases where they occur, our legal system does and should respond firmly. However, stating that extreme and unlawful practices of this kind are representative of the broader experience of Australian multiculturalism hinders our ability to respond to the threat of violent extremism in our society.

As Victorian Assistant Police Commissioner, Steve Fontana, the police officer in charge of Victoria's counter-terrorism operations said last week, anti-Islamic sentiment in the community makes their job of talking to communities and countering radicalisation harder. He indicated that anti-Islamic groups like the 'Reclaim Australia' group or anti-halal organisations 'can create tension and intolerance, and that intolerance can lead to racism, and it can further marginalise young people … and it's inappropriate … People really need to think about what cause they're going in for.'

If people are serious about reducing the radicalisation of young people in communities like the ones that I represent then we must do whatever we can to undermine these Islamophobic groups, along with the hateful messages that they espouse. As the member for Greenway recently noted, it would be nice if all members of the Abbott Government said more about social inclusion more often, and meant it.

Every young Australian must feel like they share a stake in the Australian identify, in the collective future of our nation. No-one must be made to feel excluded or somehow less Australian because of their cultural heritage. We need a debate about citizenship in this country, one that stipulates that the rule of law is absolute and crimes like child marriage, FGM and honour killings will be prosecuted aggressively, regardless of their cultural context of course, and, importantly, one that also recognises that these are rare cases and Australia is a diverse, multicultural nation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context