Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise in this House to support this piece of legislation, which is a direct result of the private member's bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill 2011 is designed to support and assist Australian victims of overseas terrorist acts. These are people who have suffered because they have been deliberately targeted by terrorist groups by virtue of being Australian and by virtue of being Westerners. Merely by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, over 300 Australians have lost their lives in the past decade to acts of terrorism in New York, Washington, Bali, London, Jakarta and Mumbai.

The word 'terrorism' has its roots in Latin and it means 'to frighten'. The aim of terrorists is to terrify us into submission. In this aim they have comprehensively failed. But this is what the perpetrators of the Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005 had in mind when they killed 202 people in the first Bali bombing, including 88 Australians, in what was the deadliest terrorist act in Indonesian history. A further 240 people were injured in the 2002 attacks. The 2005 Bali terrorist attack claimed the lives of a further 20 people and injured more than 100 others.

It is a tragic reality that Australians are sometimes specifically targeted in overseas terrorist acts. The news last year that Osama bin Laden had been killed did bring a degree of comfort to some victims of terrorist attacks, including Paul Anicich, who was a survivor of the 2005 Bali bombing. Upon hearing the news, Paul said, 'I don't feel joyous about it but I am pleased it's eventuated.' I think that sums up the feeling very well: we do not celebrate the death of Osama bin Laden, but there is a sense that justice has been served by his demise. I hope that that news last year will bring a sense that justice has been served to families of the victims of these atrocities carried out by al-Qaeda and their extended terror network and allies.

The death of bin Laden is a strike at the heart of international terrorism and a great achievement for America in particular, who led the raid, but also for those who have joined the Western allies in what is a long struggle to defeat al-Qaeda, including, of course, Australia and in particular the ADF—and the ADF still remains engaged in Afghanistan, fighting bravely to ensure that that country will not be used as a safe haven to launch terrorist attacks at any time in the future. The world is certainly a better place without Osama bin Laden commanding or inciting acts of terror around the world. While al-Qaeda suffered a serious blow when they lost their leader, they still remain a potent threat and we still need to continue to be vigilant against the atrocities that they commit.

When we talk about victims of terrorism, it is important to remember that we are talking directly not just about those who were killed or severely injured but also about their families and the communities which they belonged to. A tragic example of the effects of terrorist attacks is the Western Australian football club based in Kingsley, just north of my electorate. They lost seven team members and had two other members severely burnt during the 2002 Bali bombings. The team had flown to Bali as an end-of-year celebration for making it into the grand final, and for some it was their first trip overseas. Of the 20 who went, only 13 returned. The Kingsley Amateur Football Club were left devastated at the loss of their sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, family and friends. What unfolded in the following weeks and months was an outpouring of grief and support from the wider Western Australian community. This bill will directly assist victims and their families, like those of the Kingsley football club, to rebuild their lives after the horrifying experience of a terrorist attack.

Another victim of the 2002 bombings was Nicole McLean, who was 24 years old at the time. Nicole was a retail manager from Montrose who had been in Bali for only six hours when the bomb went off. She told her story a year later. It makes for quite harrowing reading:

Everyone else was around the bar area. I was on the dance floor and I was the only person there left alive. The bomb went off and I think it’s done a big circle of the place—like the fireball just went round—then something heavy hit me on the arm. It was probably a plank of wood; who knows? It was hot, on fire, and damn heavy and it hit me on the arm. I went to try to shake it off but the force of it had just sent me flying. I thought ‘what the hell is that?’ I had no idea.

…   …   …

I’ve woken up and seen my arm on the ground. It was still attached—but only by skin—but it was lying in a strange position. I’ve picked it up and held it across me and tried to get up but my leg was damaged and I couldn’t get up so I just had to lie down again. I just thought ‘someone’s going to come and get me’. I didn’t know who it would be but I knew I wasn’t going to die in there.

…   …   …

I got back to Melbourne on the Hercules and I was still dozing on and off and still very blase. I was okay for a week then my body just wanted to finish up, I think. The infection that was in my arm was going into my bloodstream and my temperature went up into the high 40s so they raced me down to ICU and I spent three days on life support.

They told me that the arm would have to come off. I think when it comes to a limb on your body, it’s your life or your arm, there’s no question, it’s got to be your life.

…   …   …

I went back to work after six months. I only work three days a week now. I don’t want to work a full week. I get tired.

I fought for my life for two months. That takes a lot out of you. I do get customers who ask about my arm. Sometimes I just say ‘I was in Bali’.

It is important that victims such as Nicole are able to rebuild their lives and will be eligible for assistance to do so. Terrorism is a crime that is tragically life changing for not only those who are directly attacked but also their families and the wider community.

For Perth mother June Corteen, death struck twice. Her twin daughters, Jane and Jenny, were just outside the Sari Club when a terrorist detonated the bombs that killed those 202 people, including her two daughters, who were 39 years old. Ms Corteen said her daughters were always close. They had grown up together in a small Western Australian town and Jane had two children, Jack and Katie. Her partner, Steve, had taken the children to visit his parents while she and Jenny went to Bali. Ms Corteen said she would always remember the first moments when she heard a radio broadcast about the bombing. Somebody mentioned the hotel where her daughters were staying near the site and she feared the worst. Ms Corteen had to bring dental records and DNA to Bali, then came the emotion of taking her daughters home, knowing their bodies were in coffins in the plane's hull. Ms Corteen said:

They were born together and they died together. If one of them had happened to survive … it would have been terrible for her and it would have been extremely hard for me. It's hard for me now but I'm pleased that they are together.

The Bali attacks in 2002 and 2005 were not the attacks by al-Qaeda and their allies that claimed the most lives. I am sure every Australian and every member of this House remembers where they were when they heard about the attacks of September 11 in New York. Almost 3,000 people died immediately as a result of those attacks; 372 of them were foreign nationals. Ten Australians lost their lives in those attacks on the World Trade Centre. With their families and friends left devastated on the other side of the world, the opposition believes that this parliament should offer them financial support so they do not have to concern themselves with these matters whilst they are dealing with the burden of grieving. This funding will also assist victims in their rehabilitation process, for both physical and psychological injuries.

Stuart Knox, an Adelaide man who was 29 years old at the time, has shared the story of the loss of his twin brother on September 11. His brother, Andrew Knox, was working as an environmental architect on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Centre's north tower when the first of the hijacked planes struck. The American Airlines jet smashed into the tower just below him, between floors 93 and 99. Stuart was alerted his brother was there and had him on speaker phone for a while as his brother huddled near a ledge saying he could not breathe. Andrew Knox's mobile dropped out after that, but his brother does live with some relief that he apparently died before the tower collapsed. Stuart said of his brother Andrew:

… I guess that, over the 10 years, it has been one of the hardest things, because of the fact that you're looking at the fact that, if a loved one died in a car crash, nobody has filmed it, nobody plays it for you repeatedly. But, for something like September 11, you have images of the … time that your loved one was killed.

September 11 and the Bali attacks were of course only two of several attacks that included the attacks in London in 2005, a series of coordinated attacks targeting civilians using public transport during the morning rush hour. On the morning of 7 July 2005, four Islamic home-grown terrorists detonated four bombs, three in quick succession aboard London Underground trains across the city and later a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. Fifty-two people were killed in the attacks, including one Australian, and over 700 were injured. Sam Ly was the only Australian killed in those bombings. He was in the UK with his long-term girlfriend on a working holiday, and they were caught up in the bus blast in Tavistock Square. He was a 28-year-old computer worker. His father and nephew flew to London to be at his hospital bedside, but he died a week later on 14 July. Mandy Ha, his girlfriend of nine years, accompanied his body back to Australia. Other victims of the London bombing include Gillian Hicks from South Australia, who had both her legs amputated, and one can understand the profound effect and the difficult impact on her life, and the costly and ongoing medical treatment that would be required, having suffered an injury as horrific as that.

It is vital as a nation that we do offer the victims of terrorism our support. As well as the few examples that I have mentioned above, 300 Australians have been killed in these atrocious attacks. But the attacks would have directly impacted on thousands of Australians who were the families of the people who were directly affected. Their scars, of course, will be both physical and mental.

It is important to note that this bill is a direct result of the important work done by the Leader of the Opposition and, in debating this bill today, I am pleased that it includes the principles that were outlined by the Leader of the Opposition when he first raised this issue in his Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010. The opposition leader's private member's bill aimed to provide additional financial support of up to $75,000 to Australians who are affected by terrorism while they are overseas.

The government's bill adopts this approach and will institute a mechanism through the social security system called the Australian victim of terrorism overseas payment. The payment will provide up to $75,000 to individuals who are injured or to a close family member of a person killed as a result of a terrorist act committed overseas. The payments are similar to those available under state victim-of-crime compensation legislation.

As has been noted in the bill's explanatory memorandum, in particular this bill will enable Australians who are victims of a declared overseas terrorist incident to claim financial support of up to $75,000. It will enable the Prime Minister to declare that a relevant overseas terrorist incident is one to which the scheme applies. It will establish eligibility criteria so that payments can be made to either long-term Australian residents who are victims of a relevant overseas terrorist act or, in the event of the death of a victim, close family members. It will also ensure that victims are not required to repay or deduct Medicare or other benefits from any payment received under the scheme and it will enable the enactment of legislative instruments to provide further guidance on the amount of assistance that each victim or close family member should receive. Whilst, clearly, these measures will never ease the pain of losing a loved one or erase the memories of those who have been the victims of terrorism, they do go some way to providing real and tangible support for those victims.

I want to foreshadow that the Leader of the Opposition will be moving amendments that address the fact that the bill before the parliament is not necessarily retrospective. It could, potentially, leave victims of the Bali bombings and some of the other past terrorist attacks that I have outlined without any financial support. The opposition certainly does not seek to play politics with the issue, but the Leader of the Opposition has written to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney-General to seek some clarity on this. They have, at this stage, refused to extend the application of the bill, and I would urge them to reconsider that decision. The Leader of the Opposition has consistently said in the past that Australians who were killed or severely injured in the second Bali bombing were the Australians who gave him the inspiration to craft this bill in the first place. So he, as I said, will be moving amendments to ensure that they, absolutely and definitely, have access to this compensation. I think that most members of the House would agree that it would be very disappointing if the victims of the two Bali bombings, the two Jakarta bombings, the London bombing and the attacks of September 11 were not able to access the compensation that will be shortly available.

This is a very important issue and it is an important bill. As I said, the opposition does not seek to score political points or gain any political kudos over this. We simply wish that our parliament, our government and our nation acknowledge Australians who have suffered through terrorist acts and that we grant them additional appropriate measures of recognition. This bill is about providing support to our fellow Australians who, through no fault of their own, have suffered at the hands of merciless terrorists who hate us for who we are and what we are. The payments contained within this bill are not large, but they will appropriately recognise Australian victims of terrorism, who I think most would agree are worthy of our support.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to support the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill 2011. The bill demonstrates the government's commitment to ensuring that Australian victims of terrorism overseas and their immediate families are entitled to the same amount of support as any victim of a terrorism act committed here on Australian soil. This bill makes the necessary amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to establish the Australian victim of terrorism overseas payment, and outlines the necessary circumstances under which individuals and their families are entitled to Commonwealth support. In order to be eligible for financial assistance of up to $75,000 in the aftermath of such a tragic incident overseas, the incident would need to be pronounced as a terrorist attack by the Prime Minister of the day, and the victim would need to satisfy specific criteria regarding physical or psychological effects.

Currently, victims of domestic terrorism could be compensated here in Australia through state and territory criminal justice measures compensation schemes. Presently in Australia every state and territory has victims of crime provisions which include terrorism—because, as you are aware, terrorism is included as a crime—and are eligible for lump sum payments under the criminal justice regimes operating in those states and territories. This bill will ensure that there is an adequate compensation scheme available for Australian victims of terrorist acts where they occur overseas. It is also applicable to their immediate families.

Over the years Australians, together with the rest of the world, have been touched by the threat and indeed the reality of the evil of terrorism. Clearly, when the September 11 attack occurred in the United States, it very much changed the world. The modern world has become far more aware of its own vulnerability and the high prospect of terrorism that lies ahead. It is something that moves all our security agencies to protect our communities against the ravages of such evil events.

Recent terrorist attacks, including that on the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001, the Bali bombing and the tragic incidents on the London subway, in Madrid, in Mumbai and in many other cities around the world have shown that the grief and suffering go in no way only to the immediate human loss of life. We have seen—and the shadow minister mentioned in a very moving way—the effect that these terrorist events have had on the immediate families back here at home. These devastating effects are left in place for years and years to come.

Despite not having experienced a terrorist attack on Australian soil, Australians have been directly affected by a number of overseas attacks. In fact since September 11 more than 300 Australians have been killed or seriously injured in terrorist incidents overseas. In the past decades Australians have been killed or injured in terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, Bali, London, Jakarta and Mumbai. It is our duty as a nation to protect our citizens from the threat of terrorism and provide assistance to the victims. In this we take that duty very seriously. Ensuring the threat of terrorism does not penetrate our national borders—antiterrorism—is a national priority.

In this I compliment the efforts and commitment of the Australian Federal Police. I know the minister responsible for the AFP, the member for Blaxland, is in fact at the table at the moment. The Australian Federal Police is doing a fantastic job in all quarters of the globe but particularly in our region and in working very closely with our allies in counterpart jurisdictions. I would like to mention its Indonesian counterparts on counterterrorism measures. The AFP, for instance, through the government, established the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation and provides vital assistance in the aftermath of the Bali bombing in 2002 and other terrorist attacks that followed in Indonesia. I have had the honour of visiting that centre and seeing firsthand the absolutely tremendous work that is being done by the Australian Federal Police in assisting police of the Indonesian policing jurisdictions. We should be very proud of the work the AFP are doing in that part of the world. They are not only protecting Australian citizens but also assisting the development of professional policing skills in our neighbouring police jurisdictions. As I say, the consequence of their actions is not just about protecting Australian citizens; they are providing a vital and integral part of policing development throughout our region.

The Bali bombing was particularly devastating for Australians. It is the closest we have come to being directly attacked in recent years. Bali was one of the most popular tourist destinations for Australians for decades. For years Australians have been probably the main driver of tourism in the Bali island. Retail and hospitality industries all flourished off Australian tourism to Bali. The Aussies were attracted by the surf and night-life there. But it is certainly an area—and having been to Bali, I know this—that is very spiritual, peaceful and tranquil, which is also an attraction for many.

In October we will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the tragic incident that brought many Australians for the very first time face to face with terror. The attack by the militants of Jemaah Islamiah, a network linked with al-Qaeda, claimed the lives of 202 people from 22 different countries. Eighty-eight of those victims were our fellow Australian citizens. A further 209 people were injured during those attacks. The Bali bombing was one of the most horrific acts of terrorism, and obviously very close to our shore. It was an act that some would refer to as Australia's September 11. That is not only because a large number of Australians were attacked and killed on that night; it is really because Australians were the target of that terrorist attack. All terrorist activities are tragic but the tragedy goes beyond the number of lives lost. I think we have all been touched in some way by the effect on the immediate families and close friends of the horrific act of the Bali bombings. Personally, I will always remember the words of Brian Deegan, a lawyer and former magistrate from Adelaide who tragically lost his son, Josh, in the Bali bombing. I had a lot to do with Brian when I was involved with the Bali 9—a number of Australian citizens who, through activities in drug trafficking, were sentenced to death and were on death row in Kerobokan Prison.

Over that period, Brian expressed to me his immeasurable grief over the loss of his son who was only 22 years old at the time. He actually reduced this to an essay and published it as Remembering Joshua.I was very moved by Brian's words of grief, but in my discussions with him I was particularly touched by his conviction not to seek revenge on the men responsible for his son's death. He was, and remains, against capital punishment. I certainly saw firsthand the impact that the loss of his son had on his life.

The Bali bombing is something that this country will never forget. The Howard government needs to be complimented on the way they handled the aftermath of the tragedy, providing vital assistance to the victims and their families affected by that tragedy. The 88 Australians who tragically lost their lives on that dreadful night died because they were Australian. It was an attack on the freedom and democracy that our nation stands for.

Terrorism is a crime directed not at individuals but at the state, even though individuals are the immediate means of harming the state. Nevertheless, there are direct victims. Therefore in that context, the burden of the attack should not be borne just by the victims. They have suffered enough. It is the duty of a federal government on behalf of the Australian people to provide the necessary support to those affected. The federal government has assisted Australian victims of terrorism in the past, providing them with medical and evacuation support, consular assistance and assistance with funeral costs and other expenses on an ex gratia basis. As I understand it, the value of that assistance to date exceeds $12 million.

There is, however, more that can be done to ease the suffering and to provide support to Australian victims. The financial payment of up to $75,000 is an acknowledgement that injuries sustained in terrorist attacks are often grave and have lasting physical or mental effects on individuals. The financial assistance for the families is an acknowledgement of the tremendous effect the death of a loved one during a terrorist attack has on the immediate family.

Looking after the families of the victims of terrorism is also our responsibility and as such it is right that we provide the necessary assistance to families during what must be the most difficult time in their lives. Ex gratia payments to the victims of terrorism and assistance with funeral costs, travel and lost wages occurring as a result of the terrorist act are some of the basic forms of assistance and the least we, as a nation, can do to support families.

Support for the substance of the bill is bipartisan. In fact it builds on the points expressed in the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill from last year—I remember speaking on that bill as well—including ensuring that victims of terrorism are not required to repay Medicare, workers compensation or any other benefits received from the Commonwealth.

The bill is also consistent with current victims of crime compensation schemes around the country. The payment will also be exempt from taxation. Despite our efforts to ensure the safety and security of all Australians at home and abroad, the ongoing threat of terrorism remains real. Australians should be assured that the Australian government is doing all it can to minimise the threat of terrorism and protect freedom and our way of life. It is what we do because we are Australian.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill. It is a very worthwhile bill. It is a bill that has been a long time in coming. It originated because of the tenacity of the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. Tony Abbot had personal experience with the acts of terrorism when he was in Bali. By coincidence, when Tony Abbott was in Bali the people that he helped after the Bali bombings happened to be personal friends of mine.

I commend the government for bringing this bill forward. It is a little late but it is well recognised. There is one fundamental flaw in this bill. That fundamental flaw is that it is not retrospective for those who have already suffered at the hands of terrorists. It does not matter whether those terrorist acts occurred in New York, Washington, Bali, London, Jakarta or Mumbai if the victims are our fellow Australians. During these acts people's lives were destroyed—they were ended—and family structures were torn apart. Communities were torn apart. I am not saying that the coalition government who was in power at the time of some of these acts and the current government have not provided medical or support services. But this is the payment of a compensatory amount of $75,000 that would enable people to get on with their lives. We are not talking a huge amount of money. Over the past decade about 300 Australians have been killed or injured in acts of terrorism overseas. That is an average of 30 a year. If we apply that average of 30 times $75,000, the estimated cost would be around $2¼ million per annum. It is not a lot of money, so what I cannot understand is why this government is not making it retrospective.

I have made a number of speeches in this parliament on this issue and surrounding the acts of terrorism on Australians. I do get concerned and I would like to point to a couple of incidents. In November 2009, then Prime Minister Rudd gave a commitment to this House that he would push to have this incorporated as part of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. In fact on that day in the parliament Prime Minister Rudd berated me for questioning the integrity of that scheme and how it would apply to people who had been affected by acts of terrorism such as the twin towers attack in September 11, the 12 October 2002 Bali bombings in which 88 Australians were killed, the London bombings in 2005 where one of my constituents, Louise Barry, was affected, and the October 2005 bombings at Jimbaran Beach where four Australians were killed, including three from the Hunter Valley, Jennifer Williamson, and Colin and Fiona Zwolinski.

I have regular dialogue with one of the victims of these bombings, Paul Anicich. Paul Anicich was a leading light, a leading legal mind, one of the senior partners in Sparke Helmore. These events meant that he could no longer work. His capacity to apply his brilliant legal mind was taken away from him. His wife, Penny, also suffered from the explosions. Their path of recovery has taken a long time. Paul has been one of the strongest advocates for this victims of terrorism compensation fund. The Leader of the Opposition was fair in saying that Paul Anicich is one of the people who has driven our side of parliament into pushing this as an agenda. Paul quite rightly admits that it is not he that needs the money—it is people like Tony Purkiss, a great guy who had a good job but was blinded by the bomb blast and is now not able to work, and like the young boys Isaac and Ben Zwolinski who lost their parents. How do they get on? We are not talking a huge amount of money. I understand the coalition will be moving amendments through the Leader of the Opposition to make this retrospective, to pick up the tab and provide some compensatory funds for those who truly deserve it.

On 13 May 2010, just over two years ago, in question time, then Prime Minister Rudd responded to a question that I asked him in relation to how the victims of terrorism bill was progressing. He said:

… the honourable member for Paterson asked about compensation for victims of international terrorism. I am aware of the private member’s bill that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on this matter—and about which the member for Paterson has spoken. It proposes the establishment of a compensation scheme for victims of terrorism overseas. We appreciate the spirit in which this private member’s bill has been put forward. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I say that we support victims of terrorism and appreciate the interest that any member of this House takes in their particular and individual circumstances. We are happy to examine the bill which has been put forward and see what practical things could be done to assist Australians in these circumstances. To that end I have asked the Attorney-General to speak further in the course of the next month with the member for Paterson on its details. We condemn, as I am sure all members of this place do, all acts of terrorism. We stand by all Australian victims of terrorism.

This is the key point. Here was a Prime Minister saying, 'We stand by all Australian victims of terrorism'. That was on 13 May two years ago, and this bill is only coming to the floor of the parliament today. I think that the time this has taken to actually come to the floor paints in a bad light some of those who have expressed their concern for these victims.

How do you say to someone who has suffered a family member's life ending from an act of terrorism, or to a person whose life has been rendered partially useless because of a senseless act of terrorism because of people attacking what we stand for—freedom and democracy not only in our country but across the world—that they deserve any less than what applies to any victim of crime across the states? If I am not correct someone will correct me, but the amount of money paid across the states to victims of crime is $75,000 a person.

I am very disappointed that this bill is not retrospective. That was the crux of the bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition—to apply to those people who had already suffered. Creating a bill before any terrorist event occurred would have been something we would have all looked at and said, 'Well, this is never going to happen,' but these events occurred nearly seven years ago and it is only today that we are here debating this bill on the floor. For seven years people have sat around wondering what the government would do given the promises and the commitments that were made. I sit and think regularly about Paul and Penny, and Tony Purkiss and how they are getting on with their lives. I think of the young boys Ben and Isaac and how they have grown into fine young men without their parents. As I say, we are not talking a large amount of money. We are talking about an amount of money which will make a difference to the lives of these people. This bill is in line with state and territory victims-of-crime regimes, and we support that. I ask the government, as I have on many occasions before, to actually have a heart. Have a heart; it is not a lot of money. If we compare it to other schemes and expenditure of government—and I am not going to get overtly political on this—the total quantum of money is very little in comparison. I urge the minister and I urge those local members who represent the families or the individuals that have been affected to have a heart and to make sure that they stand up for them in this time of need. I again congratulate the government for finally getting this bill to the floor of the House, but we have been given so many commitments before. We need to see a final resolution of this so that people can get on with their lives, and I look forward to joining in the debate on the amendments to be put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill 2011. In one of the letters in the New Testament from St Paul of Tarsus, he admonishes some believers in one of the group of churches he established by saying that when he was a child, he thought like a child and when he was a man, he thought like a man. What he meant was that when he was a child he had infantile beliefs and ideas but as he became a man he put away those, grew up and realised about responsibility, cooperation, love, affection and resolving issues without disputation, conflict and warfare. When we are children and things do not go our way, as toddlers, we lash out. It is juvenile, but that is what we do. We pull something away from our brother or sister. But we realise as we grow older that we resolve disputes cooperatively in a democratic, compassionate and understanding way. Our parents teach us that, our teachers teach us that and our friends teach us that.

Most Western countries resolve those things in that way. But, lest we in the West pat ourselves on the back, the Great War from 1914 to 1919, the worst war in the history of humanity, was started by an act of terrorism. It was a war in which most of the Western powers engaged themselves, and we did as well. One wonders how that war started. It was an act of terrorism by a Serbian national who wanted to attack and get rid of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and killing a member of that royal family was how it happened. Many wars are started by acts of terrorism. In the West we cannot understand it, because we believe in concepts like liberal democracy and resolving our disputes. No matter what rancour and disputation we see across the chamber, no-one picks up guns, bombs or knives and starts slashing one another. When governments are defeated in elections, the Prime Minister and the cabinet resign and leave, and a new government comes in.

In the last 40 years in this country we have had 20 years of conservative rule and 20 years of Labor rule. Australians are used to changes of government. We accept the outcomes of elections. We accept that people can live their lives the way they want to. We find it hard to understand the fundamentalism and extremism of religions, of belief systems, that would result in the despair and the destruction of terrorism. But we know, from the last 10 years or so, about 300 Australians have died as victims of terrorism. They have died in the United States, they have died in Indonesia, they have died in the UK and they have died in India. They have died needlessly and unnecessarily. We find in our community of Australia, in our very civilised country where people resolve their disputes, that we are not without fault. There are criminal acts committed every day, sadly, across the country, but people generally can resolve their disputes in courts, in mediation, in arbitration and in a civilised and dignified way. It is indeed the case that, even when we go to court, 95 per cent of those cases are resolved without going to a final hearing. So we find it hard to accept what we see, and we struggle and strain about it.

This legislation is important. It is important to provide financial assistance. As a politician I have had the benefit of being in Jakarta and talking to the Australian Federal Police about terrorism in Indonesia and what happened in Bali, and talking with Indonesian police as well. I visited the Middle East and saw the hostility and enmity between Jew and Arab, and the viciousness with which their beliefs are held. We are very blessed in this country, but you can see Australians all throughout Asia, the Middle East, Europe and the United States, because Australians travel. You can see them in lifts in Tel Aviv. You can see them in markets in Jakarta. You can see them in shopping centres in Singapore. And whenever they travel they are at risk of terrorism. Fortunately in this country we have been blessed by not having those acts of terrorism that we have witnessed overseas amongst our friends in the UK, the US, Indonesia and India.

The purpose of this legislation is to provide financial assistance to those Australians who have been injured or who have had close family members killed overseas as a result of these wanton acts of unnecessary violence we call terrorism. This bill was introduced a while ago and there are amendments. There are important amendments to our law and they provide a system of payment which we are familiar with in this country—that is, through the victims of crime type of legislation and compensation. This is very much based on the WorkCover type of legislation. We will take into consideration the nature, duration and impact of the injury or disease, the future loss of earnings, the kinds of special injury or damage that people suffer and the circumstances in which that injury occurred or that disease was picked up. So we are aware of those things. We also took into consideration in putting together this bill the nature of the relationships between the primary and secondary victims, and I will talk about them shortly.

There are important provisions in this bill to enhance people's financial capacity to get on with their lives. For example, the payment—which goes up to $75,000—will be exempt from GST. There are provisions in the bill to exempt from the Income Tax Assessment Act the moneys paid in assistance as well as other kinds of payments which are regularly brought back to the Commonwealth or to an insurance company under existing legislation.

In the past there were ex gratia payments and, though they were paid, they were paid in a way that was inconsistent, and they were paid to past victims to assist them. The payments were complex and spontaneous. They were not always made with a sound basis, and they were not consistent with victims of crime or WorkCover types of compensation. So we are putting in place with this bill some legal rigour and a consistency of policy and assistance which is commensurate with the injuries suffered. Such concepts are familiar to lawyers and to many Australians around the country who are involved in workers compensation or victims of crime situations. It is hard: we will never be able to compensate Australians for the grief, the suffering, the agony and the loss that they go through, and my heart goes out to them. Many Australians will remember where they were when they saw what happened in Bali or on 9/11. We are also establishing through this bill some eligibility criteria, and we are making sure that Medicare payments do not have to be refunded.

In the minutes I have remaining, I turn to the matter of who is going to get the compensation. As I said, the compensation is paid up to a maximum of $75,000, though nothing will compensate people in real terms for what they go through. The legislation makes plain in section 1061PAA the qualifications for an Australian victim of terrorism overseas payment. The person has to be a primary or secondary victim of a declared overseas terrorist act. The person or the person's close family members must not have been involved in the commission of the terrorist act—in other words, they must not have been involved in aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring in connection with the terrorist act or involved in it in any other way, including the conspiracy. The person has to have been an Australian resident or a person resident in Australia on the day that the terrorist act occurred. There is a legal basis to determine whether a person is a resident of Australia—they have to be an Australian citizen or an Australian resident. Both categories are covered by the definition. A person is defined as a primary victim if they were in the place where the terrorist act occurred and were harmed, within the meaning of the Criminal Code, as a direct result of the terrorist act. The definition is pretty clear: the person had to be injured in a bomb explosion where they lost an arm or a leg or received lacerations or another injury.

The eligibility for compensation of secondary victims is important because it is not just the person who is injured but also their close relatives who are often victims. Because they survive, it is the close relatives of the injured person who feel the pain. The definition says that a person is a secondary victim of a declared overseas terrorist act if they are a close member of the primary victim's family, and the primary victim must have been in the place where the terrorist act occurred and have died as a direct result of the terrorist act before the end of two years from the date that the terrorist act occurred.

Close family members are defined—and I applaud the government for this definition—as the person's partner, the person's child, the person's parent, the person's sibling or the person's legal guardian. It is important to extend eligibility for compensation to make sure that the family of the person who died is given assistance. There are often expenses associated with a person's dying. Any person who has been involved in civil litigation involving the loss of a person in, say, a car accident or an accident at work knows that this is the case. The damages specified in the bill make some reference to the Veterans' Entitlements Act. As I explained, there is also a definition of what it means to be involved in the commission of a declared overseas terrorist act.

This bill is important. It is a just bill. It brings some legal rigour and some consistency of policy and administration to the subject. It is important that we provide the assistance specified by the bill, and it surprises me that Australian governments of both political persuasions did not think about introducing a bill such as this a long time ago. I am pleased to support this bill, whose provisions for assistance will—I hope— never have to be called on by any Australian family suffering as so many Australian families have suffered in the past.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege again to rise in this House to speak on this matter as I did on 28 February 2011 in response to the Leader of the Opposition's fine private member's bill. It is very important to acknowledge the role of the Leader of the Opposition in bringing forward this legislation today because, without his inspiration in understanding that this gap was there in Australian society and in the legislative framework in dealing with the victims of terrorism, we would not be here in this chamber today. I do commend the government for finally moving on this but, as I remarked in February 2011, there are still some significant concerns with how this will apply to the existing victims of terrorism that have been so tragically affected by those awful and terrible acts we have seen in many parts of the world in the past few years.

We know that 300 Australians have died and their families are still here in Australia suffering. The Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill 2011 is designed to help those people who are victims of events that the member for Blair outlined in speaking on the provisions of this bill. One of the concerns that we have as a coalition is the fact that this is not necessarily retrospective. That is of fundamental concern and ought to be of concern to the member for Blair, who indicated his surprise that no government—of any flavour, as he put it—had brought forward this kind of legislation before. I am surprised that we have this legislation before us today and the government is still not understanding the fundamental proposition that this is about dealing with those victims of terrorism that already exist in our society today. This is what we have identified. The Leader of the Opposition identified the suffering of those people and put forward the idea that we arrange for their circumstances to be better after suffering, through no fault of their own, these terrible acts.

I do think there is a disconnect here between the government and the opposition on what this means. We, of course, want to see future terrorist acts covered, and this legislation will be a big improvement on the situation. But we do need to consider very carefully that if we do not make it retrospective or we are not clear on the retrospectivity of this legislation then it will not cover the people who have been the impetus for this very legislation coming to the House. I am a proponent of, in general, not passing retrospective law in this place where it is to somebody's detriment. But this is not about detrimentally affecting any of these people; it is about ensuring they receive and access the benefits we are providing if we pass this legislation in the House. In February 2011 the Leader of the Opposition was very clear in highlighting all of the tragic circumstances—the people remaining after the Bali incident, the communities and families that were affected—and that this legislation was coming about and his private member's bill was in relation to these people's circumstances.

The disconnect goes a little further sometimes. The member for Blair understands the law very well and was speaking about legal eagles and lawyers. But I do not really accept that this bill is essentially the same as a workers compensation proposition. I do not think it is a helpful comparison. I know he did not intend to make it, but I do not feel that that sort of assertions, that this is somehow related to workers compensation matters, is useful in this debate. In a genuine fashion I am saying that to him. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation to cover an extraordinary gap arising from an era that most Australians would not have been able to predict and that we are unable to deal with very effectively. Even with all the instrumentalities of government and even with all of the absolute right of the state to use force, we still struggle in dealing with terrorism all around the world. While our soldiers are fighting a very brave fight overseas, terrorism is a very difficult problem to solve and dealing with its consequences is a very difficult problem for us to deal with.

That is why the Leader of the Opposition proposed a private member's bill that was deliberately vague in its provisions to allow the government scope to ensure that there would be maximum flexibility in its design of legislation and maximum adaptability to ensure that the benefits were received by the victims without the rigmarole or the legal approach of government. I understand in the complex world that we live in, with all of the laws that we have passed—and there are too many of them covering too many topics—that we do have to look into every provision of every different social security bill and other arrangements to ensure that people are not penalised. But, equally, the intention of our legislation must also be clear—and that is to avoid turning this into a style of workers compensation or other matter. It is just simply to assist those people and their families who are victims of terrorism.

We have heard about the amounts of money that this bill deals with. They are negligible. There is really no substantial serious impact. And while I am never lenient with taxpayers' dollars, and I never ask this place to be, this topic and the reasons and the impetus for this legislation are such that we can, I think, excuse $75,000 payments. I think they are appropriate and go some way to assisting with the very serious situation that people find themselves in. We have seen the horrific impact that terrorism does have on our citizens abroad and the ongoing horrific effect on the lives of the families here.

I spoke on 28 February 2011 about this legislation and the government has now got this bill before us. While at the time I made a point about the government criticising the private member's bill for not being technically accurate, I am still not sure why it would take that period of time to make this bill technically accurate and yet still not cover the topic of retrospectivity to cover the very victims that we are all so concerned about and that we all on both sides of this chamber want to assist. I am speaking here tonight to urge the government to continue to improve the quality of what it is doing in relation to this as quickly as humanly possible.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition will be moving amendments to this legislation. They are considered amendments with a very positive intent to improve this legislation, to ensure that the very people that are the reason for this legislation are covered by it. The government in good faith should consider carefully its approach to amendments when an opposition does come up with good ideas. This is not the kind of topic where the opposition will say: 'We got one over you. We thought of something you didn't.' This is the kind of topic where we are genuine, where the Leader of the Opposition's intention is genuine, in trying to do something about a very serious gap and a capability gap.

The member for Blair spoke about his surprise about any government not doing anything. It is surprising, given the fact that terrorism came up, that no government has moved to do this and it is time for us to do it. I would urge the government to think very carefully about their approach to the amendments to ensure that we do have a very bipartisan approach to these matters and to ensure that we do accept worthy ideas for improvement. We must clarify the retrospectivity concerns and we must look at what is going to happen to these very badly affected victims who have provided the impetus for this legislation. Without too much further ado I would simply say that the original design of this was vague to allow the government scope to do it. There is nothing wrong with getting the opposition's assistance in this case and ensuring that we have a high-quality bill.

Debate interrupted.