Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

This proposed legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016, is appropriate. I want to examine and commend the process that was outlined by the member for Isaacs in his remarks and also by the Minister for Justice. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry included the very unusual idea of having public hearings of the committee. This is a practice that is commendable and has been introduced only in recent years. The examination of these issues and the allaying of concerns of members of the public that this parliament is both active enough and concerned about individual rights is a very good process.

As the member for Isaacs pointed out, this is one of several tranches of government legislation that the opposition has supported over a number of years to deal with the worsening situation that we have faced since the sudden appearance of Daesh in western Iraq and the raising of the so-called Islamic State in Syria based in Raqqa. The member for Isaacs outlined the number of Australians who, tragically, have been over there fighting with Daesh. The security services have outlined a number of people who are back here in Australia, having returned from the fight. We know, of course, of many people who have been radicalised—I thought 'groomed' was a very good expression that the member for Isaacs used—by these fiendish, wicked people misusing one of the great religions of the world in a political ideology designed to effect their violent and horrible aims.

We all remember the terrible scene of the Australian Daesh fighter pictured in Syria—I think it was in Raqqa—with his two young Australian sons, holding up the heads of beheaded Syrian citizens. That is one of the most terrible scenes that reflects on the seriousness of this issue for Australia. It is an iconic scene of the process that is taking place over there. It has involved not just those two young ones. We saw in Australia, in Parramatta, a 15-year-old and, in Endeavour Hills, a 17-year-old involved in incidents. One of the worst events that did not happen, thanks to the good work of the security services and the police, involved a 14-year-old in London who gave instructions to an 18-year-old here, who has since been convicted, to do on Anzac Day in Melbourne two years ago what was done in Nice. Imagine if that had happened.

I am very pleased with the process that the member for Isaacs outlined. The Labor Party has been entirely responsible. Of course the primary duty of any political party in this parliament is to ensure the right to life and peace and safety of Australian citizens. We have gone into this process with a great deal of seriousness. I want to outline—because most people will not remember this—where this all began. It began many years ago when Labor was in opposition, before the last Labor government, and the then Attorney-General proposed taking powers unto himself that would have allowed him to point to different organisations which he would then label as terrorist and have outlawed. Labor and the parliament thought it was a much better idea for those organisations to be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security so that we would have bipartisan support for that. That is not only good ethically, and it is not only good democratically for this parliament to have that view; it is actually politically necessary because of the make-up, for more than a decade, of the Senate of Australia. These laws might not have been passed—the five tranches of legislation so assiduously worked on by the opposition to improve them to see that they were balanced with civil liberties, balanced with privacy and at the same time gave the security services and the police the powers that are needed to handle the developing situation with terrorism.

These organisations were advanced to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee decided, on the basis of recommendations, which was or was not a terrorist organisation. As far as I understand it, the committee has never gone against the recommendations, which are put in great seriousness by the various agencies that are responsible. Part of the reason I am standing here today is a particularly insolent response I got from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in an answer to a question on notice about one of these organisations. The response pooh-poohed the role of the committee and said that all powers were in the hands of the Attorney-General and that these issues were briefly referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The shadow Attorney-General in his speech has outlined the fundamental importance of that committee in seeing that there is bipartisan support. I say to members of the government: you would not get this through the Senate if Labor opposed these kinds of resolutions. The irresponsible Greens political party speak against these amendments and this kind of legislation at every opportunity. They do not seem to be interested in the safety of Australian citizens. They do not seem to have the great national purpose that either of the two major political parties have. It is with that great purpose that we come to this parliament and that we consider these issues.

When I got this response from the foreign minister in Hansard in questions on notice, I thought about how this is the same minister who used to talk 18 months ago about the useful role that the Russians might provide in Syria. I constantly used to ask her about how the bombing was going in Aleppo. But it has almost got beyond the point of making jokes about the foreign minister's views on the Russians or the Assad regime in Syria. The tragedy that is happening in Aleppo, the breeding ground for terrorism, the fact that 330,000 people are being carpet-bombed—we may dislike Daesh, which springs from some elements of Sunni Islam, but to do what is being done there is a crime against humanity. It is going to come back to haunt all of us, so talking about the useful role of the Russians in Syria is a laughable prospect. It is a breeding ground for the kinds of people that we are going to have to be concerned about. Similarly, the same minister, who rightly comes into this House and talks about North Korean missile tests, never mentions even the American government, which has been involved in a nuclear deal with Iran, and never mentions the four ballistic missile tests that the equally dangerous regime in Iran has undertaken in the same period of time as the North Korean missile tests.

The member for Isaacs pointed out that there were 20 amendments that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended to improve these bills. It shows the worthiness of the process of referring this kind of legislation to the intelligence committee. I think it is particularly wise also to have the amendment on advocating genocide there. Some of the people, who, as the minister said, want to groom young people do not give direct signals. They do not say, 'Go out and do this terrorist act,' and therefore legislation might not cover what they are doing. They might say, 'Go out and kill all of these Ahmadiyya Muslims', a very nice group within the Muslim community that exists in Sydney. What would happen if they did that? Some of the people who have been groomed might be prompted to take action against that entirely peaceful group in the Muslim community if they were given such instructions by some of these devilish people involved in Daesh both here and there. Therefore it is appropriate, with 14 to 18-year-olds, that the government have the power to use control orders to prevent such tragedies happening here in Australia.

I will conclude by saying this legislation has been so thought through, so worked over that it has bipartisan support. As I said, it will then pass in the Senate with both government and the opposition support. Hopefully, as the member for Isaacs reminded me, some of this legislation will never be used. Some of the previous tranches of legislation will never be used. We hope that they will never be used because (a) the incidents will not happen and (b) other legislation will cover the acts of such people if, God forbid, they are undertaken.

I commend this legislation. I commend the process by which it has been examined. This is the Australian parliament at its best. It is an example of the kind of serious work we have done to protect the safety of all Australians.

See this speech in context