David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be able to speak on this very important legislation, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. There's nothing more important than our national security. We as a nation have in the past had to confront the evil of terrorism, and it is important that we reflect on these laws and fully consider them in this chamber.

I want to make five key points. The first is obviously that terrorism in recent years has been something of a less prominent focus in public debate than in prior years. Much of the debate in recent years in the security setting has been about counterespionage. Of course, the previous government passed some very important legislation in relation to countering foreign interference in Australia, so espionage has been a big focus, as indeed have been broader concerns about geopolitical issues in our region. So there's been less public focus, certainly, on terrorism than there was some years ago. But it's certainly the case that the perverse ideologies of terrorism haven't gone away, and there are still people who want to act upon those ideologies. There are various strands of that, but those people are out there, and we must never, ever gloss over that extremely important fact. Evil exists in the world, and sometimes its manifestation is through terrorism. So we need to be conscious of that.

The central question on legislation like this is, of course, the balance between civil liberties and the protection of the broader community. That's a centuries-old area of focus because, when you put in place strong laws to protect against terrorism, you almost inevitably have some impact on civil liberties, and it's an issue on which debates will be had and people will put forward their views and so on. But I think we should always err on the side of protection and should always err on the side of caution because the consequences of terrorism are so horrendous for our community. We're not talking about something that has a minor impact. We're talking about something which, if it happens, has a devastating impact on our community.

Laws which enable our AFP and others to be on the front foot in protecting our community against terrorism should broadly be supported. This isn't an academic issue. We have seen terrorist plots, both those that have been averted and those that, very sadly, have come to fruition and have led to loss of life in Australia. We remember the very serious plot involving the Holsworthy Barracks, not far from my electorate in Sydney; the Endeavour Hills incident in Melbourne; of course, the horrific siege of the Lindt cafe; the terrorist murder in Parramatta; and the evil, terrorist incident in Bourke Street in Melbourne. Right there, that's a list of five very, very serious terrorist plots—some of which came to fruition, leading to the loss of life. So this isn't theoretical. It isn't academic. It's very real and it's very serious. So, for policymakers, the question is: on which side do you err? Because there is an inevitable tension between civil liberties and protection. I think one should err on the side of protection.

In the context of the legislation we're talking about today, it's particularly important to note—and I'll come in a moment to the three key provisions, although I don't propose to extensively repeat the contributions of earlier speeches—that, in the three key elements, two of those powers have never been used. Two of those powers have never been used. We have some example of the other power being used in a fashion which was effective and actually led to the imprisonment of two people. So it's very difficult to make an argument here that there is a disproportionality in the legislation, given that two out of the three provisions haven't been used. It's reasonable to raise civil liberties concerns, but it's hard to have a civil liberties problem if the law isn't, in fact, being exercised.

That was my fourth point. The fifth, broad point I want to make is that it is manifestly in Australia's interests that laws of this nature, wherever possible, are bipartisan. It is not in our national interest to, in my view, politicise or seek to make political capital out of these sorts of matters. I think the good thing about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is that it seems, over many years and under different chairs and under different compositions, to have achieved that, and that's really good. It doesn't always happen in this place. There are many areas where a robust and forceful public disagreement is often a good thing and leads to better policy, but this is an area where bipartisanship is to be preferred, wherever possible.

We've got a big report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It's 114 pages long. It's got 19 recommendations, and the government, I think quite sensibly, is saying, 'Well, let's go through this carefully. Let's not rush the response to that. Let's balance the civil liberties concerns and the concerns about the protection of the Australian people, and let's do that over a 12-month process.' It seems to me that that is a very sensible thing. We don't have a scenario where there is evidence of these laws being misused or anything of that nature. So it seems to be me it's inherently sensible.

As my colleagues have touched on before, there are three key elements of the bill. There are the control orders that allow, in some circumstances, for people to be held if there is a reasonable fear that those persons may be planning or seeking to implement an act of terrorism. Those control orders have led to two people being jailed for breaching control orders—one as recently as earlier this year—and in both cases they were people that had been involved in the planning of terrorist acts. I think the Australian community would be very supportive of the use of those laws in that circumstance. The provision of preventative detention, where someone can be held without charge—which is obviously a very serious thing to do—where the AFP suspects that an attack is imminent and, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, to preserve evidence, has never been used. It's a sensible provision and I'm glad it's on the books, but it has never been used. Then there are the emergency stop and seizure powers under the Crimes Act, which again allow the police to take action where they perceive a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health, or safety. There are a whole bunch of safeguards as to how that power can be exercised, but again, it hasn't actually been used. It's certainly not a civil rights issue if it hasn't been used, but it's good it's there.

It's good that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has done such thorough and thoughtful work in reviewing this legislation, and I think it is eminently sensible of the government to take its time to carefully review that in the intervening 12 months, leaving in place the laws which are working effectively and coming back to this parliament in 12 months time with proposals as to how to further improve those laws. In doing so, the government's key motivation should be the protection of the Australian people, because there is nothing more important than that.

See this speech in context