Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

11 September 2001 was, without doubt, a day that changed the world. Although terrorism itself was not a new phenomenon, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the crashed plane in Pennsylvania, have come to symbolise what is terrorism. It is easy to see why—the sight of two of the most iconic towers in the Western world burning, knowing that they were full of innocent citizens, strikes fear and sadness into the hearts of those who see that image. It frightens us. It causes terror and, at the end of the day, that is the sole aim of terrorists.

Before September 11, we lived in a world in which a Boeing 747 was not a missile; a train was transport, not a potential high-speed weapon; an unaccompanied backpack was simply thought to be carelessly left behind by a distracted traveller; and a nightclub was not thought to be an ideal place for a strategically planned inferno. These are thoughts that will now forever be at the back of our minds, thoughts that constantly creep into our conscience. That is how September 11 truly changed the world we knew. For the first time, the attacks in which innocent people were dying were delivered straight into our living rooms in real time. The world stopped. Everyone remembers what they were doing and where they were when they watched these life-changing events unfold.

These attacks moved terms like 'terrorism', 'insurgency' and 'al-Qaeda' out of the realm of foreign policy and into our everyday vocabulary. It made the world seem like a much smaller place. World issues that were once only the problems of faraway lands were now right on our doorsteps. In that way, it shattered some of the West's remaining innocence; it made us question whether we were safe in our own homes. The attacks themselves were not just physical but a carefully planned message to strengthen their impact—'You are no longer safe.' On this day, 11 September 2001, 9-11, the Twin Towers—the symbol of world trade and modernity in the centre of one of the great cities of the world—were destroyed. Australia did not stand idly by when the time came to defend the values that were attacked that day. We understood that this was not just an attack on America but an attack on a way of life, a way of life that we too live by. This was even further apparent one year after the September 11 attacks, with the Bali bombings of 2002. We have been steadfast in our resolve and it is easy to see why President Obama wrote a particular letter of thanks to Australia on this 10th anniversary, one of only three written to nations around the world. In part, it read that Australia's support was shown immediately in the 'heartfelt words of support and sympathy on that day' by former Prime Minister John Howard, who was in Washington at the time.

A generation has grown up in the 10 years since September 11. Those who were children struggling to understand in 2001 have been through high school and university in the age of terror. They still travel, still embrace the world's opportunities, but they do so while family members are justifiably more anxious about their safety. Before 2001, a terrorist attack would have been the last worry on a parent's mind as their child travelled to New York, London, Madrid or Bali. Since 2001 that has changed. It has changed because of the lives that were lost: 3,559 souls in the September 11 attacks alone, including 10 Australians—lives changed forever, lives never forgotten. We have heard their stories. At the end they rang their loved ones. In their last moments, no petty grievance mattered, no material wealth brought joy. All they wanted to do was say 'I love you' one last time.

This year, on the 10th anniversary of the attacks, we saw the world come together to remember. We came together to remember those who fell. We came together to remember the New York firefighters and police officers who risked their lives to save others, and to remember the city and the nation which were shocked to the core by these attacks. We came together to stand beside them to show them that they are not alone. We believe in the values that were attacked that day: freedom, faith and unity, living a life of opportunity and reward, a life in which we maintain hope, living a life free of fear.

It is timely to recognise our courageous service men and women who are today still putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan to continue the battle against terrorism and to protect those values for us all. It is timely to remember the 192 of our country men and women who have been injured, and the 29 who have paid the ultimate price with their lives. This is why we continue to show that terrorism has not won. It may have changed our lives forever but we have all shown that our resolve is stronger, that we are resilient, because we have faith in freedom and because we remember those that we love.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution to this important debate on one of the most significant events most of us have seen in our lifetime. It is one of those events for which all of us remember where we were when those planes hit the World Trade Center in New York. I remember it very vividly. I was on my way to a 6 am boxing class at my local gym and they were talking about it on the radio in the minutes leading up to six o'clock. I had to wait till I entered the gym and saw the footage on the television screens before I understood exactly what it was that the radio commentators were talking about. They were running commentary, assuming knowledge of what it was they were commenting on, and it was hard for me to put the jigsaw together, but on entering the gym and seeing the vision on the television screens I became very aware of the gravity of the events that had taken place overnight, our time. These were tragic events, events that led to the loss of a couple of thousand lives, including 10 Australians, and events that touched Australians everywhere. Whether they were in New York on that date, in Australia or anywhere else around the world, they quickly came to an understanding of the gravity of what was unfolding in New York that morning.

It is easy for us, 10 years on, to fall into the trap of believing that terrorism began on 11 September 2001. Of course, it did not. We had been living with terrorism and terrorist threats for many, many years before that—indeed, depending on how you measure it, for centuries before that. Munich, for example, always stands out in my mind. Those who like to cast their minds back to the 2000 Olympics in Sydney will remember how tight the security was then because of the fear of a terrorist attack of some sort. So 11 September 2001 does not mark the arrival of terrorism in Australia, but certainly it is the point at which terrorism became very much part of our daily conversation.

Events in Bali, Jakarta and, to a lesser extent for Australians, London and Madrid have reinforced in all of our minds the constant presence of the threat of terrorism. Indeed, it is a very real threat. Sadly, in the course of the decades and, arguably, the centuries it has too often had its roots in religion and differences in ideology. Stemming from that are extreme views about some of those ideologies.

I am indebted—I think we are all indebted—to the work of two academics, John Mueller and Mark Stewart, who is from the University of Newcastle, for the work they have done recently on the cost of our response to September 11. Their basic thesis poses the question of whether we overreacted and overspent in our response to terrorism, and whether, in economic terms at least, that has been money well and efficiently spent. I praise them for their work. I think it is an excellent piece of work; empirically speaking, I think it is almost without challenge. But I do want to make the point that, while their work is empirically and economically sound, it really is difficult to measure the cost of a human life. It is not something that I believe economists are able to do. I think that is where their work breaks down, in a sense. Of course, the other question is: what should we not have funded in our response to the events of 2001? And what would have been the result of not funding part of that response? Importantly, I think that is something that we must keep in mind.

Throughout this debate, we remember those who are still fighting under our flag in Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan because of the events—at least, initially—of 9-11 in 2001. That connection remains a very strong one. I think it is important to remind ourselves of the need to finish our work there and to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a breeding ground and launching pad for those prepared to perpetuate acts of terrorism around the world, including against Australians.

I join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have made a contribution to this debate. This is a very, very sad anniversary. There are many lessons for all of us to take from it. I think an important one is the question of foreign aid, and this feeds into the question we have had on our minds constantly in this place in recent days and weeks—the question of those seeking asylum. The reality is that Australia takes a very small proportion of the global flows of refugees. It is a difficult challenge for all the countries dealing with that issue but, at the end of the day, we would not have flows of refugees if as an international community, as a global community, we did more to prevent the source of problems in the first place, whether that is famine, civil conflicts or state-to-state conflicts. There are too many of those flashpoints around the world at the moment and there have been in recent years.

I find it a little bit intriguing that the same people who complain about us being too humane, compassionate and generous towards refugees are the same people who tend to oppose us investing in foreign aid. That is an obvious contradiction. I believe that, while our own foreign aid contribution has been rising in recent years—and that is welcome—in a perfect world at least we are nowhere near where we could be in our contribution to foreign aid, nor indeed are the wealthy nations we sit in conference with on a regular basis.

We must come to the understanding and realisation, without being overambitious, that the best way to deal with the flow of refugees is to ensure we do not have a flow of refugees, and the best way to ensure that is the case is to invest more heavily in economic development, in the development of governance in developing nations and in science regarding droughts, food crises and starvation—for example, in African nations. We need to ensure that we do all we can to spread democracy in developing countries and ensure we do not have despots around the globe imposing acts of terror on their own people. Of all the things we could learn from September 11, I think that rates very highly.

I take this opportunity again to extend my condolences and sympathy to all the people who were touched by September 11. By that I mean all the people who knew someone who was killed or injured in the events of September 11. Of course, collectively, we all hope and pray that we never see events like that again in our lifetime.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too join with my colleagues in speaking to this motion commemorating the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11 in 2001. In his book The New Vichy Syndrome, Theodore Dalrymple writes about the profound malaise that haunts Europe. It traces the malaise back to the two great conflicts of the last century, with their disastrous though understandable effects upon self-confidence. According to Dalrymple, Europeans no longer believe in anything other than personal economic security, an increased standard of living, shorter working hours and long vacations at exotic locations. As a result, according to the author, they are not in a frame of mind to face the challenges before them, whether that is increased Islamic penetration or economic competition from the rest of the world.

What makes Dalrymple's analysis relevant to this motion marking the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001 is his description of the mood that developed between the two great wars. Using popularly acclaimed plays of the day, he describes how intellectual reflection on the Great War changed and created a mood of disillusionment in Britain such that an indisputable orthodoxy was established. I quote:

… the very success of this revaluation of the meaning of war … must have made it very difficult for politicians, had they felt so inclined, to face up to Hitler by military means, even when the means needing to be employed were minor … so the re-evaluation of the war helped to make inevitable yet another even larger and more terrible war.

This was in Britain and France, which had succeeded in the Great War. As he concludes:

In Germany, disillusion bred a mad militarism; in Britain and France, a blind pacifism.

The consequences are well-known: the rise of the Third Reich, Chamberlain's attempted appeasement, Hitler's march into Prague, the Vichy regime in France and the horrible conflict that was the Second World War.

I mention Dalrymple's analysis as there is a possibility that a re-evaluation of the conflicts the West has been engaged in over the past decade will result in a similar mood. The portents are already visible in the analysis of some: Iraq was unnecessary, the Afghan conflict will end in a quagmire. Hence, a new pacifism could emerge, placing a brake on reasonable, proportionate and necessary responses to ongoing conflict and terror.

How we respond in the coming years will shape the events of the future. That is why this motion is not just about the events of 9-11; it is also about our future. It should not be forgotten that 10 Australians were killed on 9-11 in a war on the West that has played out in various places: London, Madrid, Bali and Mumbai amongst others. Nor should it be forgotten that at least five serious terrorist plots have been prevented by Australian authorities since 2001. Yet we hear voices that are more critical of the West's response than of the actions of Islamist terrorists and that are calling for a new pacifism. We hear complaints about the length of the West's response, as if this is simply conventional warfare, ignoring the fact that our enemies are united more by identity and less by geography.

This is not a war against Islam; it is a war against totalitarianism. Regrettably, totalitarianism has reared its ugly head in every era of history. It is not confined to any one group. Only vigilance about our values of human dignity and human freedom, the values that underlie Western civilisation, and a preparedness to confront totalitarianism will preserve us from the consequences of indifference and inaction. I join with my colleagues in sending my condolences to all the victims of those terrible attacks on 9-11.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had the opportunity while in the chair, and sometimes in my office, to follow the contributions of some of my colleagues in this response. It has been a moving experience. Nobody listening to all those contributions could doubt the great sincerity and humanity of our colleagues in this place, which I think is something we sometimes lose sight of. I am pleased to be able to join in that and to acknowledge the member for Menzies, who preceded me.

It is not by design, but I want to acknowledge that I am making my contribution to the response to the statements by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on this day, which is UN International Day of Democracy. I think it is important that we all take time to celebrate and commit to the expansion, flourishing and protection of democracy across the world. It is particularly pertinent to the challenges that face us post-September 11. No doubt those who instigated these acts sought to undermine the great values of the Free World. I welcome, therefore, the opportunity to speak on this important motion which commemorates that fateful day in September 2001.

As with so many other momentous days in modern history, each of us can recall exactly what we were doing when that first plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8.46 am, New York time. I certainly recall what I was doing: I was watching an episode of TheWest Wing on Channel 9. I recall a newsflash appearing on the screen, and at first I thought it was part of the show. Then Jim Waley appeared, announcing that a horrific accident had taken place in New York and that more details were to come. Like many others who have contributed to this response, I at first thought it was an accident, and a bewildering one. TheWest Wing episode concluded and the nightly news appeared again to report on this horrific air crash in New York City. I recall quite clearly seeing the thick black smoke billowing from the top half of the north tower, then, right before my eyes, seeing the second airliner crash into the south tower and explode into flames. Like many others, as I remember those events I can still feel the goose bumps we all felt across the world as we observed that. During this time the true horror of what we were seeing began to dawn on us. I, like many others, stayed glued to the news, flicking from channel to channel until the very early hours of the morning. The horror dawned of seeing three buildings collapse upon themselves within the space of 102 minutes. It was hard to believe. As if this were not enough, further news reports came that another airliner had crashed into the Pentagon. Then more news, that another plane had crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. This last plane, it was speculated, was headed for Washington, to crash into a significant place there—the White House or the US Capitol, for example.

Four planes filled with innocent civilians were used by terrorists as missiles. The last plane, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was brought down by the heroic efforts of its passengers, who refused to allow the terrorists' plans to succeed. How many lives that were saved by that action is incalculable. Sadly, this horror killed nearly 3,000 people—mostly civilians, going about the normal beginning of just another work day. Office workers were killed as well as managers and chief executives, restaurant workers and cleaners, and emergency responders—firefighters, ambulance, paramedics and police—innocent people, all of them, murdered by extremists. And of course 11 Australians were murdered on that fateful day. People from 90 countries were killed on that day.

It is said that there are six degrees of separation in this world and in some way we are all connected to everyone else. September 11, 2001 touched us all because all of us seem to know of someone who lost a loved one or was connected to someone who did. At the time of the first anniversary of this terrible event, I was in the middle of the Cunningham by-election, which was to be held on 19 October. My campaign team included Kirsten Andrews. Kirsten's close friend, Andrew Knox, was killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center. It was a hard time on that first anniversary for Kirsten, and I want to draw people's attention to a very moving tribute that Kirsten wrote to Andrew, which was published on the 'The Drum' on the ABC website last week.

Even worse, not long after remembering the first anniversary, the second experience with a disgraceful terrorist bombing occurred a week before the Cunningham by-election in 2002. On 12 October next year Australians will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Bali bombing. Again, terrorist extremists claimed the innocent lives of 202 people: 88 Australians perished, as did 38 Indonesians. Two hundred and forty people were injured in those cowardly, murderous bomb blasts. A friend and colleague of mine, Tania Brown, was in Bali at the time. We were all touched in one way or another by terrorist activities.

In September and October 2009, as part of a parliamentary delegation to the United States, I had the opportunity to visit New York City. I have to say New York City is a fantastic place—it is indeed the city that never sleeps. I had the privilege of visiting the Tribute World Trade Center Visitor Centre located on Liberty Street. Across the street from the centre lay Ground Zero. Visiting the centre was extremely emotional. Its exhibits were heartbreaking and initially I found it hard to convince myself to continue through the whole exhibit. At the beginning, there was an almost entirely melted aluminium window frame from one of the downed planes. There was a battered and torn safety uniform of a dead firefighter. There was a twisted steel beam, torn as if it were a piece of paper, from one of the World Trade Center towers. It all brought home just how devastating the collapses were.

The most haunting and emotional exhibition of all for me was the one showing the nearly 3,000 faces of the victims of September 11, 2001. I shall never forget the faces of those innocent people. I shall also never forget the cracking, emotional voice of Mr Lee Ielpi, a retired firefighter and one of the founders of the Tribute World Trade Center Visitor Centre, as he told us the story of September 11 and his two firefighting sons. Both, as was their civic duty, risked life to try to help and save the lives of others. Both went into harm's way, into the burning, shattered and tortured World Trade Center towers. Only one son returned. The other died, another victim of that day. I shall also not forget the last room at the centre, where visitors are given the opportunity to write down on postcards to display around the walls how they feel about the exhibits and their experience. I just want to mention one message left by an Indonesian man. He wrote the words 'war' and 'peace'. 'War' was written on the upper portion and 'peace' was written on the lower portion of his postcard. But he left the letter A out of each of them and an A floated in the centre of the postcard. The remainder of his message was simple but powerful. He had written, 'We have only one letter A. It is we who will decide where we will put it.' I can think of no better way to conclude that visit to the centre and to conclude my brief remarks on this solemn motion. All of us, I am sure, prefer peace but sometimes we must fight a war against terrorism and all it represents to secure it. I will finish by saying that we should also take time today to pay our respects to those who have lost their lives in this battle and to their friends and loved ones as well.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can all remember where we were and what we were doing when we first heard about or perhaps even saw the terrible 9/11 terrorism tragedy, an event which changed the course of world history. I heard on the television news about the first plane, American Airlines Flight 11, crashing into the World Trade Center's north tower. To my horror, I then watched on the live telecast the second plane, United Airlines Flight 175, going straight into the south tower.

As editor of the Daily Advertiser newspaper at Wagga Wagga, I headed straight back to the office. As many of the other newspapers, certainly the country editions, had already gone to press, I knew it was the job of the Daily Advertiser to bring our readers the awful reality of the breaking news. The Daily Advertiser published a special late edition wraparound and then printed a rare afternoon edition to cover the moments of madness. The accompanying editorial, written within hours of the horrors which unfolded half a world away but in reality so close to home, summed up the feelings then and the words still ring true today. Headed 'My God, why did this have to happen?', I wrote this:

Hell on earth. The worst acts of terrorism against mankind were perpetrated overnight.

As people awake this morning to the devastating and frightening news of the sickening events in the United States of America just hours ago, the world stands on the brink of another awful war.

The retaliation by America, its heart ripped out by the series of attacks, will be swift and deadly.

The land of the free and the home of the brave will not take such an assault on its nation and its people without a reply of unbelievable military might.

The US believes in democracy, freedom and prides itself on being the world's superpower and policemen.

What happened last night was a calculated, murderous and savage campaign of terror, the likes of which have never been witnessed on this planet.

The ramifications of such an all-out use of force against America will be far-reaching and will, undoubtedly, change the course of human history.

Indeed, history was changed forever last night.

World peace has never been in such a fragile state.

Not when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was gunned down in Sarajevo in 1914, not when Adolf Hitler's tanks rolled into Poland in 1939, not when President John F Kennedy stood ready to overthrow Fidel Castro's Cuban Government in the 1961 Bay of Pigs crisis.

The date September 11, 2001, will forever be blotted … a date of infamy branded on the consciences of a bereaved nation, a bereaved world.

To say the world will never be the same is surely an understatement.

What will transpire in the days, weeks, months and maybe even years to come is anyone's guess but sadly it will involve untold heartache, misery and unprecedented retribution.

The thoughts and prayers of all those able to comprehend the tragedy and enormity of this horrible day must go out to the countless thousands of innocent victims.

Will it ever be possible to know how many died so one group of inhumane killers could vent its will against global peace?

Sadly, one has to ask how a country—the US—which can send people into space to live in orbit around the Earth, which can develop and mass produce such a powerful communication device as the internet, which can spy on, listen in on and know so much about anyone and everyone it cares to carry out surveillance upon ,can be so ill-prepared and not know in advance of such a calamitous event as this?

Why is this so?

Indeed, why was it so? We should have been better prepared, but how can you ready a nation for something such as this? No-one could have imagined that anyone, no matter how deep their hatred of the freedom so cherished in Western civilisation, would be mad enough or bad enough to do such a thing. We now know differently. If it was an attempt to strike fear into the Western world and everything that civilised people represent, it backfired. The world is a far different place than it was a decade ago—not necessarily an altogether better place and not necessarily an altogether safer place, but a different place. Some of the globe's worst evil-doers are gone or on the run. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the 'Butcher of Baghdad', is dead, as is Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, the jihadist organisation responsible for the September 11 attacks and many other mass-casualty attacks against civilian and military targets. Muammar Gaddafi, former autocratic ruler of Libya, has recently been overthrown. The United Nations has referred the massacres of unarmed civilians to the International Criminal Court, which on 27 June issued arrest warrants for Gaddafi.

The Bali bombings, one year and one day after 9/11, resulted in the deaths of 202 people, including 88 Australians. Of those, three were from the Riverina—all fresh-faced young men in the prime of their lives. Killed were David Mavroudis, age 29, whose parents, John and Colleen, used to live across the street in my home town of Wagga Wagga; Clint Thompson, 29, of Leeton; and Shane Walsh-Till, a mate of mine, who was 32 and from Coolamon. The cowardly, heinous, senseless acts of bastardry in Bali resolved Australia's determination to rid the world of those who sow the seeds of evil—those who wreak havoc upon innocents in the name of religion.

Australia has played a significant military role but has also paid a heavy price for its involvement in the war on terror. Our losses have been particularly high this year. In 2011, eight diggers have made the ultimate sacrifice, among the 29 brave, selfless men we have lost in Afghanistan since 22 October 2001, when the first contingent of the Special Forces Task Group was officially farewelled in Perth as it departed to assist the US-led international coalition against terrorism.

We are making progress. It is slow. It is difficult. It is dangerous. But we must stay the course. That is what our troops want; they know there is still work to be done. It is also what Afghanistan needs. United with our American friends, we must and will reduce the threat of terrorism. The price of peace is eternal vigilance. May those who have died because of terror, and those who have laid down their lives fighting against such wickedness so that we may live free, rest in peace. Lest we forget.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This segment of time we have dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks is important, but not just for the sake of commemoration and not just to honour those who passed as a result of those truly awful and horrific acts. The people who have spoken here in this room and those who are yet to speak have a role to renew, reflect and reinforce our commitment to this nation as custodians of a broad range of responsibilities. Those responsibilities stem from a recognition of this great democracy, not just in word but in deed. That work began with the moving and thoughtful contributions by the Prime Minister and a particularly impressive reflection by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. It continued with contributions by colleagues who are in this room right now, the member for Cunningham and the member for Riverina. I also had the opportunity to listen to the contributions by the member for Fowler, the member for Kooyong, the member for Casey and the member for Eden-Monaro.

But my heart ached especially when I watched the member for Higgins as she recounted what she was going through, because many of us have people close to us who went through that as well. And there is another person, whom I will not name here today, but when she reads this she will know that my heart is with her when she recounts those she lost. Many people across our country felt that. Friends close to me felt it, and friends in this place felt it. Regardless of who we are and regardless of what we think, we are bound through our common humanity, as custodians of what is important in this place, to defend what we benefit from every day. There are friends in the US—and I have spent time in the US—and whenever Americans and Australians share the same space there is a genuine affinity between our peoples because there is a relaxed, almost instant, bond that is formed. For so many of us here, we did not know the people that died on that day, but we felt the pain of our friends in America, just as we feel the pain of people in other parts of the world who are expected to bear a heavy price as a result of truly awful acts. I think that what occurred in the US on that day is what happened to the people, for example, in Indonesia, including in Bali—Australians who lost their lives there, and Indonesians as well, in a country that has worked so hard with us to ensure that these types of brutal acts are not repeated.

I ask people to remember that the blood burnt into the remains of the World Trade Center was the blood of people of all nationalities and the blood of people who were young or old; people who were men or women; people who were fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers or children. They were Christian; they were Jewish; they were Muslim. My mind is burned with the image of those silhouettes passing in the final moments of the World Trade Center. I thought that those people had been denied the opportunity to return home to finish off rich lives.

Just as I do today, I felt back then that none of those people deserved to die in that way. Not one single person who died at the World Trade Center deserved to end their days in that way—not one. The people who committed those murderous acts claimed that religion drove them, but can I just say that that is not anything remotely related to the faith that I have or the faith that I share with millions of others. We were never brought up to feel that way or to be motivated in that way. So over that period of time, in these years that have followed, we have all been tested in our response to that brutal act— all of us; every single one of us. The test has been not just in a military sense and not just in a government sense; it has been a test of people and how we would react. In my mind—and I know this is something carried not only by me but by others—we cannot expect that hate matching with hate will produce anything good. We cannot expect good to be built off hate, and we cannot expect to be brought together and held together by tears that are bitter. We have to find something deeper within us to unite us as a nation.

There have been periods since then—and it is important that we reflect on this. Every time a terrorist act is committed in some part of the world, there are people of my faith who wonder what will happen next. As much as I think of the people that suffered as a result of September 11, I also think of the fear that runs through people's minds as a result of those moments when we all recoiled in horror at what had been done. So I come back to the point that we are all tested through this process. When we are tested through this process, I am proud of how our country has responded—again, not just in a physical sense but the way we have responded by saying that we will not let hate divide us and that we will walk together as a people, regardless of background, race or religion, to ensure that we protect and defend what we benefit from every single day. That is what I cherish. If I may use a word that seems so improper in this statement today, we do hold on to each other in a way that says we will deny those who seek to divide us through these vile acts. This is what is so important about today. This is what is so important about holding these statements in the way that we do, because as much as we are rivals here we are bound by a common desire to see good things done for this country that we love so much. That is why we cannot just have this as a moment to think about that important purpose. The way we conduct ourselves day in, day out, once this debate is concluded, is so important too. That is why I feel so strongly about this debate. It is because it is a touchstone for us all. It seeks for us to remember what has occurred and to be better for what has occurred.

To conclude, we ran our fingers over a scar today. We ran them over that scar to remember the hurt and to remember that we can be so much better. And we have a responsibility to be so much better. To those people who lost their lives through every act, but particularly the act that brought us here today in remembrance, my heart goes out to them all. Those families provide us with an example of something better to live for and an example for us, as custodians, to provide something better for those who follow us. I thank the House for the opportunity to make this statement.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Chifley. I am very happy I was in the chair to hear that speech.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As many speakers in this debate have noted, the events of September 11 are burned into our collective memory and our individual memories. Many people in this debate have spoken about their own memories on learning of the dreadful news of what was happening on that day. All of us share that sense of shock, fear and anger, and those feelings are as strong in our memories now as they were when we first had them. For many Australians that sense of shock was heightened because of their personal familiarity with the areas in the United States that were under attack, and I want to talk particularly about New York City and the World Trade Center.

I do not know how many Australians have visited the World Trade Center over the years, but I would not be surprised if it were as many as five per cent or even 10 per cent of our population. Australians, as we all know, are inveterate travellers and the World Trade Center was an absolute must-see on any visit to New York.

They say that when you stood on top of the World Trade Center on a clear day the number of people you could see in the tri-state area—New York, Connecticut and New Jersey—exceeded the population of Australia. It is quite a fascinating statistic. Many Australians have also visited Washington DC, where a third plane crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth was intended to crash, before that was prevented by the extraordinary courage of the people on board.

A very high proportion of the occupants of this building have visited Washington DC based upon our professional interest in the core business of that town, which is of course the same as the core business of this town. As has been noted by many, including Mr Howard himself, the fact that John Howard, as Australia's then Prime Minister, was in Washington on the very day of this dreadful attack undoubtedly contributed to the speed and vigour of Australia's response in expressing our solidarity with the United States and in our rapidly invoking the ANZUS treaty.

Many Australians have a familiarity with both New York and Washington DC through visiting there and, of course, a large number of Australians have had the opportunity to live and work or study in the United States. In my own case I was lucky enough to spend two years in New York City studying at Columbia University, between 1993 and 1995. Like all who have had the opportunity to live in New York I was entranced by this city, by its extraordinary energy and by its remarkable diversity. I visited the World Trade Center quite frequently. It was hard to avoid, it is a major transport hub with a number of subway lines and the PATH—the Port Authority Trans-Hudson train—connecting there. I also had the opportunity to attend meetings at companies based in the World Trade Center.

The fact that it is commonplace for Australians to live and work in New York City is confirmed by the awful statistics that 10 Australian lives were lost on September 11, 2001. Australians are not by any means unusual in that regard. The United States, and New York City in particular, are a magnet for people from around the world. As we have heard many times, the grim statistics are that not only were Australians killed but people of some 90 nationalities were killed in that appalling attack.

It was an attack on Western civilisation and on the values that unite the United States, Australia and so many other nations around the world. These values include freedom of movement, freedom to pursue the career of your choice, freedom of opportunity, openness to new ideas and opportunities open to all based upon their talents, not on who they were born to, which class they were born into or where they happen to live.

When you reflect on the nature of the companies occupying the World Trade Center, many of them were companies operating in highly competitive industries like banking, insurance, law and many others where employees were chosen based upon their talents and abilities. Many people had come from around the world because they saw it as a chance to work at the height of their profession and to try their luck in a system that was, and remains, ready to give opportunities to people of ability and capacity, regardless of background. One of the things that is most admirable about the United States and its values is that it is open to so many people around the world. Like Australia, the United States is an extraordinarily successful immigrant nation that has drawn people from around the world to come and live permanently or, in other cases, to come and live, work or study for one, two, three, five or 10 years.

These values are the very opposite of the values that underpin the agenda of terrorist movements such as al-Qaeda and their ideological bedfellows in the Taliban. We need only look at the narrowness of the life they seek to impose on people in the areas over which they have physical control. You need only look at their policy of preventing education for girls. You need only look at the detailed and prescriptive control of how people are to live their lives on a day-to-day basis. You need only look at the existence of religious police, constantly on the lookout for those who are not meeting the dictates about how to live and how to worship.

Let there be no doubt that people should, of course, be free to worship as they choose. Muslims must be free to pursue their religious beliefs, as must Christians, Buddhists, Jews and Hindus and those of every religion or of none. This is core to our values in Australia and it is core to the values of the United States; it is core to the values of the many nations that have suffered terrorist attack. That is why I say that the attacks on September 11 were an attack on Western civilisation and the values we cherish.

Tragically, since 2001 there have been other such attacks—in Madrid and London, in Bali and Jakarta. It is trite but nevertheless true to say that the world changed on September 11, 2001. We have seen that in the way the Western nations, including Australia, have responded. I hasten to add that it has not only been the nations traditionally thought of as Western who have joined in the response, but certainly many of the Western nations have responded.

It is a very melancholy anniversary that we are marking in this debate. It is an anniversary that we would very much prefer not to have to mark. It is difficult to find positives in what occurred, but if there is one positive we can find it is that, since 2001, many nations around the world, including of course the United States and Australia, have come together to defend our shared values. In doing that costs, large and small, have been imposed upon everybody in the populations of the many nations affected. On a day-to-day basis, security is tighter. In many ways, we have accepted some inconvenient restrictions on freedom of movement. That is just one small change in the way we live, compared with what was the norm before the attacks on 11 September 2001.

Those small sacrifices pale in comparison to the sacrifices made in the military efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan and Iraq, and to prevent those nations being havens for terrorism. That has been an enormously costly and an enormously painful exercise. It has cost lives—far too many lives—and it has cost money. It goes without saying that, collectively, we have made mistakes along the way. No human endeavour is perfect, and this has certainly not been perfect. Nevertheless, I think we can note in a cautious way that over the past decade we have been required to show confidence in our values and that we have managed to do that—to some extent at least.

Like all other speakers in this debate and in analogous debates in parliaments and congresses around the world and like people speaking at memorial services and other public events around the world, I add my voice to the many voices in all those events, places and forums which mourn the innocent victims of the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001. I add my voice to those voices which express thanks for the extraordinary courage of rescue workers. I add my voice to the voices that offer condolences to those who lost friends, family members or workmates on that day. I add my voice to those voices which acknowledge the cost and sacrifice of the military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere that were triggered as a response to September 11. Finally, I add my voice to those which express determination to uphold the values of Western civilisation; values which offer all the freedom to live their lives as they choose and which reject terrorist aggression, no matter what objective it purports to achieve.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to say that those were fine words from the member for Bradfield, and I associate myself with them. Ten years on, we can look back on the tragic events of 11 September 2001 with a seasoned perspective. We have looked back and mourned for 10 years. We have mourned the loss of loved ones, friends and even strangers, but more importantly we have mourned the loss of innocence. We need look no further than the statements of the member for Chifley and the member for Higgins to see that the grief of that loss is still raw and still very real.

The day that aeroplanes turned from being a means of transport to a means of destruction was a turning point for humanity. We will not forget the horror of the event nor the pain and suffering of those directly affected. We will always look back and mourn that loss. But, 10 years on, it is time to look at this event in its historical context, to look at the part this event will play in history and to consider how it will be viewed in 100 years time, when no living soul remembers the event itself. Will this event mark the end of something or the beginning of something, or perhaps both? Now, 10 years on, we are not so blinded by hurt, grief and anger, and we can see this tragedy for what it really was. It was not an attack on the World Trade Center—they were just buildings. It was not an attack on New York—New York is just a city. September 11 was, above all else, an attack on ideals and a way of life. An attack on the ideals and way of life that we share in Australia. Around the globe, we have a vast array of people—different races, different cultures, different religions, different ideals and different lifestyles. That is great because diversity enriches humanity. On the fringes, we have the more extremist groups with extremist views and beliefs. That is okay too, I suppose—to each his or her own. But when the most extreme ideologies are combined with the desire, the willingness and the ability to hurt, maim, kill, and destroy other peoples and their way of life, it is no longer tolerable.

We must resolve to learn the most important lessons from September 11, 2001. We can mourn our loss and we can even forgive the perpetrators of those crimes. To forgive is a virtue. But to forget would be contemptuous. We cannot just increase security at airports and then walk away thinking we have learned the lesson and taken preventative action. Increased security will only make it a bit harder to repeat the exact same exercise. Hatred is versatile. Hatred will find another way to attack. In learning the most important lesson from September 11, we need to look at the root cause of the issue—the Islamic extremists who are out there, and in this country too, who seek ways to express their hatred.

Australia is a nation of diverse people. We have welcomed people from all nations and cultures to our shores and mostly they all adopt the same principles, the same lifestyles, the same values and the same love of this country. I believe all these cultures and faiths within our country in our communities should be protected from the radical extremists who plan to attack our way of life and our values.

The member for Eden-Monaro, in speaking to this matter yesterday, pointed out that the solution to defeating this extremism was engaging moderate Muslims in this country who share our values and our concerns. He is definitely right. We do need to engage with moderate Islam. But that does not mean that we turn a blind eye to radicalism and the Islamic extremism that exists in our midst.

I would like to distinguish here between moderate Islam and the Islamic extremists. Sometimes when the word 'Islam' is used people get offended, but there is a very big difference between mainstream, moderate Islam and Islamic extremism. In the North Queensland city of Mackay, we have a strong moderate Islamic community. It is a community of wonderful people who attend a local Islamic centre very close to the boundary we share, Deputy Speaker Livermore. I am sure there are some people in that area who are in your electorate. It is a community of wonderful people who share their faith in a constructive and compassionate way. They are Muslim but they are Queenslanders and they are Australians. It is probably in that order too because they are pretty parochial in Queensland.

I know many of the Islamic community in Mackay personally. Neighbours to my family where I grew up, a Muslim family, are an asset to the Mackay region. The Sam family, for instance, live around the corner. They are a Melanesian family involved in cane growing. At times I have had the privilege of being a passenger in a taxi driven by Ollie Sam, a member of this family. They are great people.

One of the difficulties this community faces is the fear generated by Islamic extremists. To protect, preserve and encourage moderate Islam we must be vigilant against extremism. We must be on guard against those amongst us who would have us killed and our culture destroyed. As a nation we are tolerant and forgiving, but we must learn to draw a line in the sand and not forget what hatred exists in this world and in this country.

A few weeks ago, I spoke in this place on the history of the convicted terrorist David Hicks. Hicks, an Australian, had trained with al-Qaeda and met Osama Bin Laden—he admitted that—several times for information briefing purposes. He was captured in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. He was not a man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He knew exactly where he was and exactly what he was doing.

For whatever reason, we have welcomed him back into Australia. Such forgiveness, I suppose, is admirable. But when I saw that Hicks was shortlisted for the Premier's Literary Awards, I did have to question the integrity of the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, in letting that go ahead. In an attempt to defend the man who fought on the other side with the extremists, the Premier said:

The nomination of this book, in my view, is a profound reaffirmation of the values that distinguish us from those who want to terrorise others.

Well, no, it is not. What it was was the Premier giving affirmation to a book written by someone who had sided with the extremists, with the terrorists. It was the Premier giving affirmation on the same day that another Australian soldier lost their life fighting in that same country that Hicks went into so that he could fight on the side of the extremists.

I do not expect the Premier to put too much weight on my thoughts on the book. I thought at the time that there was no-one better, from the defence point of view, to reflect the view of diggers than Keith Payne, who was awarded the highest military honour that this country can bestow, the Victoria Cross. I am proud to say that he lives in Mackay in my electorate of Dawson. In talking to me about Hicks and that award, he said, 'I think it's very poor form for this nomination, and that's putting it mildly.' He told me that he had been with the Premier at the opening of a Korean war memorial and she was saying glowing things about our diggers. Now he is basically horrified to see her endorsing a book written by a former fellow traveller—you could say a soldier in arms—of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Keith Payne said he had a message for the Premier, and that was: 'Make up your mind about what side of the field you're playing on.' Hicks was a minor player when it comes to extremism in Australia. But if we think that Islamic extremists are all from overseas, we really need to think again.

There is a group here in Australia called Hizb ut-Tahrir, a political party that survived a proposed ban in Australia—it must have been under the Howard government—even though they are banned in many other countries, including countries throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. I quote what is on the public record: they believe that Australian diggers fighting in Afghanistan are 'fair game' and that Muslims 'have an obligation' to attack them. They are a group that condones the killing of Australian soldiers. Their main mission is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate or a supranational Islamic government where sharia reigns supreme and non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens.

Next month Hizb ut-Tahrir will hold a seminar on the Afghanistan war, I note, in both Sydney and Melbourne. The seminar is titled 'Afghanistan—10 years of Injustice, Oppression and Failure'. No doubt we will have Uthman Badar, the spokesman of the group, telling us once again that Australian diggers should be killed. Maybe what he will not tell us—he and his comrades in this group—is about the oppression and injustice that reigned in Afghanistan for many years prior to the current conflict—oppression and injustice that was mandated by the extremist Taliban regime against the Afghan people, against Muslims themselves. I and no doubt many others will be keeping a close watch on Hizb ut-Tahrir, this upcoming seminar and their future activities, because without a doubt the hate that is peddled by these people is of the same pedigree as that harboured in the hearts of those who flew those planes into the World Trade Center, into the Pentagon and into a field in Pennsylvania, killing thousands and changing this world forever.

The former President of the United States of America, the late Ronald Reagan, was a man of eloquence. I want to paraphrase him here, albeit a bit at length, because his words, which were originally spoken against the threat of Soviet Russia, apply equally now to the threat of Islamic extremism and terrorism throughout the Western world. Long before he held the title of President—in fact, in 1964—Ronald Reagan spoke these words at a Republican National Convention:

There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender. Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning … friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then … someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically.

…   …   …

We'll preserve for our children this—

'Western civilisation,' I suppose Ronald Reagan could have said—

the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

History will judge—only time will tell—whether the horrendous attacks on 11 September, 2001 were the wake-up bell for us in the West to restore and promote the values of Western civilisation and to defend them against those who oppose them or whether it was the bell tolling on these virtues, our civilisation and our way of life.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In commemorating the terrible and tragic losses of 11 September, 2001, I begin on a different day in a different place. I have had some close association with the events of 12 October, 2002. Four years ago next month, I represented Australia and the Australian government at the fifth anniversary memorial service in Bali for the 88 Australian victims of the Bali bombings. These are victims of the same course of action, the same movement, the same motivation as that which led to the even greater—although no greater in each individual case—tragedy of 11 September just a year before the Bali bombings.

I met the families five years after their terrible loss, and they said to me that those five years had been both the longest time and the shortest time in their lives. The sense of pain was almost undiminished, but they had to live their lives in order to celebrate those whom they had lost: their sons, daughters and—in some cases—their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and loved ones. These families recognised that for them the pain and the loss would be eternal. As long as they lived, the loss would live because that was in fact their way of keeping alive the memory, the connection and the human dimension of the very people to whom they were closest but who were taken from them on 12 October.

That is a reminder that what occurred on 11 September was neither the start nor the finish of a great global challenge. It proceeded with Bali a year later and it continued through London and Madrid with the terrible bombings there and, as we have seen, with so many other bombings throughout Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, particularly in Egypt and Iraq, and in many other places.

That tells us that it is not just the Western world that has suffered losses—although we have suffered terrible losses—but people of all origins. Whether they are black or white or of any other racial description; whether they are Christian, Muslim or a nonbeliever; whether they come from Australia, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom or from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Indonesia, there have been terrible human losses. As John Donne said: 'Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind.' That is the context in which September 11 occurred. It occurred in the form of the most notable, striking and profound element in the great struggle between extremist Islam and moderate Islam and between extremist Islam and all other forms of belief, whether political or religious. This is literally a war against everything other than itself and a war against everything other than a totalitarian caliphate—a caliphate with a vision steeped in the most extremist forms of wahhabism. It is not a representation of Islam. Islam is rightly regarded as one of the world's great and enduring religions. Its practitioners, who represent the mainstream, represent a religion which has a great belief in tolerance, diversity and, above all else, compassion and care. But this perversion of the wahhabist stream is an enduring threat because it represents a form of nihilism and a form of totalitarianism which is willing to play itself out through supreme violence.

When I look at the last decade and put it in context, what do I see? I see that it was part of a continuing battle and that there have been terrible tragedies since. And I fear that there will be continuing tragedies in the next decade. But I make this point: when we look back to 12 September, a decade ago, we could only have imagined, as we did, that the subsequent decade would have been far worse than it turned out to be. So this decade has seen loss, but on 12 September we rightly imagined that the loss would be far greater than it has turned out to be. The reason is that there has been a concerted battle in terms of both the soft power and hard power to deal with the sources of threat in the homelands, whether that is in the United States or Australia, as well as in the source countries of those who would seek to bring harm to the entire world and anybody who disagreed with their extremist form of religion and their extremist view as to how we must live. Having said that, I think the extraordinary vigilance and powerful action which has been taken in the West and in other countries have meant that we have had a better decade than might reasonably have been imagined on 12 September, 10 years ago. But the threat remains, and this brings me to the second part of my condolence.

We cannot lose our concern for what might occur in the future. Let me start with the greatest of all threats. The threat of a dirty bomb remains. There is no doubt that there are elements within al-Qaeda who to this day seek to acquire nuclear capability in such form as can be deployed with a conventional mechanism for detonation but with the ability to distribute and spread radiation in the form of what is colloquially known as 'a dirty bomb'. That is a real, tangible and genuine threat. It has receded during the last decade; but, whilst there are those with not just murderous but also genocidal intent who have no internal constraints, only hard action can be taken to defeat that process. That means difficult decisions in terms of security and difficult decisions in terms of military conflict. But without those difficult decisions there will be a tragic legacy for future generations.

Sadly, I remember standing in this very chamber prior to the Madrid train bombings and warning of bombings to come in Spanish cities if we did not take strong and immediate action. Unfortunately that came to pass. I do not know whether we could have stopped those bombings, whether the murderous intent, carried out in secrecy and silence, could ever have been detected. But I make the point now that we face a similar threat going forward, although the likelihood has receded, which is a good thing. But let us not delude ourselves for one moment into believing that the architects of such attacks, along with their motivation and degree of murderous intent, are anything other than galvanised and continuing.

Therefore the question remains, as we look at the future: what is their intention? Their intention is to create, over the course of the next century, a caliphate based on the very practices which the Taliban put into being, which were oppressive in the extreme to women, to intellectuals, to anybody who varied from the most brutal of world views. That would mean, ultimately, destabilising one of the great Islamic states—whether it is Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or Egypt—and taking control.

Indonesia has been a model of what we could hope for, with the way it has developed a pluralist democracy over the last decade. The great majority of people in Indonesia deserve our thanks and congratulations—in particular, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Indonesia is an exemplar, along with, in large part, Turkey, as to the way in which Islam and democracy can both coincide and flourish.

Pakistan is a work in progress. There is a battle for the soul of Pakistan. We must do all we can to be smart about the way in which we help to ensure that that country is able to remain both stable and democratic.

Saudi Arabia has not democratised, and I think sometimes in Australia, on both sides of the House, we turn a blind eye to the degree of rough justice which is carried out in Saudi Arabia. It is an ally, but we should not be silent about any abuses of human rights and we should not be silent about the fact that it is not a democracy and it is not on the path to democracy. We must support that path to democracy.

As we see in other countries involved in the Arab Spring, Egypt is on the path to democracy. It faces a binary choice. We do not know how the elections, when they come, will turn out, but we do know that they will in all likelihood be genuine elections and that it is the young people and people from throughout that society who have put Egypt on this path—not just the Muslim Brotherhood, as we had feared. There will be a battle for the soul of Egypt, but I think that the forces of plurality and democracy are winning. In my judgment, they are more likely than not to succeed.

Going forwards to make sure that we do all that we can to effectively remove and diminish the threats, we have two tasks. Firstly, we have to engage in soft diplomacy, soft power, both at home and abroad, to encourage moderate elements, to provide educational opportunities, to provide a path for personal development and fulfilment. That applies just as much in Australia as abroad. Secondly, we have to engage, from time to time, in hard power activities, because we cannot simply hope that those who are of murderous intent and unbridled brutality will just curb their ways. We have to confront that head-on but recognise that the great majority of people, no matter what their religion, are exactly the same: they seek freedom, they seek hope, they seek personal responsibility, they seek independence. That is the lesson of the last decade: that the extremists must be confronted and the moderate elements must be allowed to flourish.

As we see from the Arab Spring, there is great cause for hope but a responsibility for eternal vigilance. In light of September 11, October 12 in Bali and the losses in Madrid, in Spain, we should never forget the terrible price paid by our society for being free and open and democratic.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I normally do not rise in the chamber to read statistics from a newspaper. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Library for forwarding some statistics included in the 11 September 2011 edition of the UK newspaper the Daily Telegraph. The article in the Telegraph provides a detailed description of what happened on September 11 and includes some information which is quite chilling:

Ten Australians died in the attacks: Alberto Dominguez, Yvonne Kennedy, Craig Neil Gibson, Steve Tompsett, Elisa Ferraina, Lesley N. Thomas, Leanne Whiteside, Peter Gyulavary, Andrew Knox and, from Queensland, Kevin Dennis. Kevin Dennis was originally from the Gold Coast and had become a US based stockbroker with Cantor Fitzgerald. He was working on the 101st floor of the World Trade Center's north tower.

Many honourable members have said that they remember, as I do, exactly what they were doing when they heard the news of this appalling tragedy. The uncle of a former staff member of mine was a colonel in the Defence Intelligence Agency of the United States. When the plane struck the Pentagon, his uncle was attending his retirement party in the Pentagon. Happily for him, the plane struck a different part of the Pentagon and his uncle was quite safe.

All of us as Australians, in partnership with people who think correctly around the world, could not help but be stunned by the attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. Ten years on we are still surprised that these horrendous attacks were carried out not for any obvious or sensible purpose but out of a general hatred for Western values. The attacks were an attack on freedom, hope, respect, love of our fellow men and women and the rule of law. I found it astounding that anyone of any religion could carry out such a barbaric series of acts that had a complete lack of respect for human life.

What is positive is that the ideals held dear by nations such as Australia and the United States have remained and grown stronger over the past decade.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:30 to 11:56

As I was commencing to say when I was rudely interrupted by the series of divisions in the main chamber, I believe that President George W Bush showed great leadership during that period, and I have to say that I was enormously moved to see President Obama and former President Bush and their spouses together helping to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the attack on the United States. There is no doubt that there were plenty of tears around the world, but what is important is what we do from this time forward—and, indeed, what we have done during the period since September 11.

I think it is vital to recognise that the war against terror is a war that we cannot afford to lose. I do not see this as being any sort of religious war; I believe that right-thinking people of good values, regardless of their religion, would have been appalled by the senseless acts of terror we saw during the attacks on America during September 2001. The sight of terrified New Yorkers running to escape the carnage, showing their panic, their confusion, and the human horror of that terrible event will never leave us. The attacks on the two towers in New York have become the symbol of that day, but that day also saw planes crash into the Pentagon, as I mentioned earlier, in Arlington, Virginia, and a fourth plane crash into a field in Pennsylvania.

The perpetrators of this appalling act of criminality had to appreciate and must appreciate that their act of terror from the very outset would be met with resilience and determination and that their attempts to rob people of their lives, their way of life and their values would be met by the world, which would not be prepared to succumb. The terrorist attacks were a public relations disaster for the terrorists, and I think the world has since then galvanised towards making sure that our planet is a safer place.

In Australia we are singularly fortunate because we are a peace-loving nation and, generally, we respect the rights of others. We sometimes may disagree with the views of our fellow citizens, but we support, in the majority, the ideal that we are free to think what we want, and we also believe that others have the right to have different beliefs. We believe in freedom. We support a stable society. We care for others in times of need. While we might have different views on a whole range of subjects, including politics, there is more that at binds us together than separates us. The ideals of Australia have not crumbled or fallen. They have never, ever looked as though they were precarious. We and the rest of the Western world have grown taller. All people from democratic countries, including Australians, should carry the resolve and belief that we will prevail against the horror we saw on that day and the horror that has been attempted on a number of occasions since. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to associate myself with the sentiments of all other honourable members who have spoken during this very moving and very important opportunity for us to place on the record how we feel about the terrible events of September 11 and how we feel the world should move forward to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened carefully to the speeches of my colleagues who have just preceded me—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceedings suspended from 12 : 01 to 12 : 32

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being past 12.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192.