Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the:

(a)need to destroy, degrade or contain terrorism in all its forms in source or origin countries;

(b)clear and present threat posed by transnational terrorism in our region;

(c)sustained efforts of both the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and our civilian national security agencies to identify, attack and degrade foreign or 'source nation' terrorist threats at the very earliest opportunity, most notably since the 2002 Bali bombings (which claimed the lives of 202 people, including 88 innocent Australians, and injured a further 209);

(d)unique geo-political circumstances of Australia which will continue to emphasise the need for cooperative and heightened security vigilance and activity with, by and from our key regional partners and allies, over the long term;

(e)potential for Australian security forces, both civil and military, to continue to act as effective, practical agents to reinforce, bolster and continually invigorate critical regional partnerships and engagements, toward a stable and prosperous long term regional future, and one which is mutually beneficial to all national participants;

(f)potential offered by the Government's holistic approach to home-grown terrorism, to constitute a working model for consideration, adaptation as appropriate, and possible implementation, by equally determined Governments and nations, throughout our region;

(g)need for sustained vigilance and regional engagement by all like-minded nations in our region;

(h)need to maintain and support both ADF and civilian security agency capabilities, at the very forefront of counter-terrorist operational capacity and capability;

(i)need for sustained border protection regimes and procedures; and

(j)importance of maintaining and sustaining Australia's traditional defence alliance and treaty arrangements;

(2) acknowledges:

(a)the Government's active and constructive efforts to do all within its powers to halt terrorism at its source, or points of origin;

(b)that the Attorney-General's Department has led and implemented a diverse array of constructive initiatives and measures in support of community safety and resilience, which will further complement 'offshore' counter-terrorist initiatives and endeavours;

(c)that Australian Government actions are in lockstep with sensible international responses to this global trend and challenges; and

(d)the importance of secure information-sharing with traditional allies and regional partners, to achieve the negation of potentially diverse terrorist threats; and

(3) endorses and lends ongoing support to the Government's longstanding efforts to diminish the current and future terrorist threat to all Australians, including the removal of Australian citizenship status from dual citizens who are involved in terrorism in Australia or abroad.

As we have seen in the last few years, Australia faces a resurgent and increasing threat from terrorism, including home-grown terrorists who reject the values of our country and are prepared to resort to violence. The need to reinvigorate a sense of citizenship is something very important to me as the beneficiary of Australian citizenship, and I spoke about it in my first speech in this parliament and I have spoken about it in a range of published opinion pieces and speeches ever since. For those born overseas, like me, who want to live here, you must accept that Australian citizenship is a privilege. It imposes an obligation on you to put this country first, to live in peace, to respect our values and to obey our laws. It is simply unacceptable that some Australians are choosing to betray this country by throwing in their lot with barbaric terrorist murderers.

Recent events have only strengthened the case for urgent action. Our security agencies foiled two more terrorist plots in the lead-up to Anzac Day and again in early May, and to our police and security agencies I say: thank you for ensuring that the mayhem in the Middle East is not replayed daily in our towns and cities. But their job is getting harder each day.

Increasingly, younger Australians are being radicalised, some becoming suicide bombers in the Middle East while others plot to kill and maim here at home. Around 100 Australians fighting in Iraq and Syria; another 150 people here at home are actively supporting them through activities like recruiting and funding. In just the last nine months, 23 Australians have been charged following counter-terrorism arrests. That represents a third of all terrorist charges in the past 15 years. Many of those who have been convicted or who are fighting in Iraq and Syria or who are supporting the conflict from home are dual citizens. ASIO is currently investigating several thousand leads and people of concern. There are more than 400 priority cases that ASIO is pursuing—more than double the number a year ago.

Law-abiding Australians demand that this parliament act with greater urgency against those who betray us in this way. They expect us to catch up with friends and allies, like the United States, Britain, France and Canada, and doing so requires urgent legislative change. The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 must be amended to send a crystal-clear message: if you join or support groups like Daesh or involve yourself in terrorism here, there is no place for you in Australia. We must err on the side of the victims and the innocents in our society, not those who betray our values yet demand the privileges of citizenship.

Bipartisanship on these changes is preferable. I know that the opposition leader has some internal tensions to deal with, but he must avoid the sorts of premature assessments made by the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who falsely claimed two years ago that 'the 9/11 decade' was ending. History has, of course, mocked Ms Gillard's prophecy. Peter Jennings, the head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has described her assessment as 'wishful thinking'. It is a travesty that dedicated counter-terrorism funding declined during the Rudd-Gillard years by over a third. A single counter-terrorism law was passed in six years of Labor and Labor-Green government compared to four pieces of legislation passed in just 18 months under coalition leadership. I congratulate the member for Wannon, Dan Tehan, for his chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

These laws have strengthened the ability of our police and security agencies to keep us safe. Lower arrest thresholds, around 140 passport refusals, cancellations or suspensions and metadata retention have all contributed to a safer Australia. It is now illegal to fight for terrorist organisations anywhere, including in Iraq and Syria. If you do, you face up to life in prison on return to Australia. Our committee has declared Mosul district in Iraq and Al-Raqqa province in Syria, making it an offence to enter or remain there. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. It is also now a criminal offence to direct the activities of, be a member of, recruit for or train for a terrorist organisation, and we have also significantly increased national security funding, including a tripling of investment in countering violent extremist programs.

The effects of these measures are to make our country safer and to reject terrorism and violent ideologies of any kind. To those foreign-born citizens who so appallingly betray their obligation to Australia and its people, we must say unequivocally: you are not one of us and are not welcome amongst us.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in favour of the motion and put on the record what a pleasure it is to support the member for Bass in his motion. He has played a crucial role in the deliberations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on three major pieces of national security legislation that the parliament has passed. He is a keen advocate for making sure we do everything we can to defeat the scourge of terrorism. I place on the record my respect not only for his record with the Australian Defence Force as a civilian in the Australian defence department but also for the wonderful contribution he has already made in this parliament.

It is a great pleasure and honour to support him on this private member's motion, which recognises the need to destroy, degrade or contain terrorism in all its forms in source or original countries and recognises the clear and present threat posed by transnational terrorism in our region. It goes on to mention the sustained efforts of both the ADF and our civilian national security agencies to identify, attack and degrade foreign or source nation terrorist threats. I will not read the whole motion. I urge those who have a keen interest in this area to look at what the motion is about. It acknowledges the government's active and constructive efforts to do all within its powers to halt terrorism at its source or points of origin. The Attorney-General's Department has led and implemented a diverse array of constructive initiatives and measures in support of community safety and resilience which will further complement offshore counter-terrorist initiatives and endeavours.

Today I would like to address the fact that one of the things the government is now looking at is what should we do with regard to citizenship, that great privilege that is bestowed upon people when they are granted Australian citizenship? Obviously we are going to move when it comes to dual citizenship. The government wants to be able to act against those individuals who act against us by either conducting terrorist activities or advocating terrorist activities against our nation, those who, let us be frank about it, want to commit treason against our nation. We are going to do that when it comes to dual citizenship. My hope is that we will get in-principle agreement from those opposite to do so.

One of the other things that there is a lot of support for within the government is for us to move to be able to implement the United Kingdom laws which mean that the government can also act against those who could avail themselves of another citizenship. It is my view and the view of others that we should look seriously at the UK laws and seek to implement the model that they have brought forward there, because it would enable us once again to act against those who have committed treason. I know the chief sponsor of this motion is someone who actively supports this, and there are another 38 members of the backbench who have put their names to this resolution. I would ask those opposite to consider the UK model as well. It does have judicial safeguards which are put in place as part of it, but it is something that they felt it was necessary to put in place over there, and I think it is another tool that we need available to us to fight treason in this country. It is very much a way for us to modernise our treason laws.

The scourge of home-grown terrorism and of the terrorist activities which are taking place, especially when it comes to the Daesh death cult, is something that we have not seen the like of in this nation. It presents serious challenges to our national security. It is an issue which the government takes extraordinarily seriously. That is why we put through the parliament three major pieces of national security legislation. It is why the government is looking at further measures to keep our nation safe. We will not keep our nation safe if we do not tackle terrorism head on. That is the approach that this government is determined to take, and we will continue to advocate to destroy the Daesh death cult. (Time expired)

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the contribution just made by the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and I also strongly support the private member's motion by the member for Bass. I would also pay tribute, as the chair has done, to his service to the committee but also to his service to his country in a previous life. That makes the member for Bass, I think, quite qualified to speak about these particular issues, because he has been at the coalface dealing with these issues.

I would agree with everyone that has made a contribution so far that there is no more important job that we can do as members of this committee than to keep our country safe. It is almost a sacred responsibility. All else flows from that. You cannot have economic security without physical security. So I support the government's endeavours thus far in making our country safer. To demonstrate the nature of that bipartisan support, there have been, in my mind, 3½—almost four—tranches of legislation that have been put through this parliament to strengthen our security laws to give the security agencies the powers that they need to continue to keep our country safe, with appropriate safeguards. I asked my very trustworthy staff member to check how many amendments we have made to the legislation that has been put forward in our committee. In total it is 109 amendments, and we have had 68 legislative changes as a consequence of the work of the committee.

Why do I raise that? I raise it because there has been a lot of loose talk by certain sections of the media about the need for these laws. Clearly these people do not get in a car and travel to where I live, because on 23 September last year terrorism visited our doorstep—my doorstep, almost literally—when an assailant attempted to murder two policemen and, had he been successful in murdering those policemen, would then have attempted to attack and kill those in the police station. So when I read media commentary about whether or not these laws are needed, and some scepticism about why these laws are needed, I can say to those people that are writing this that they clearly have not been down to my electorate. The associates of that assailant who was killed by our police officers are before the courts again, and so I am fully seized by the government's desire to keep our country and community safe. It is bewildering to me why in the discourse about our security legislation that certain sections of the media commentariat do not understand why we need to be putting these laws through our parliament. I have lived why we need to put these laws through the parliament, and we continue to live those reasons. When the Prime Minister quite reasonably puts forward a proposition for further strengthening the laws of the nation to keep our community safe, I think he should be given the appropriate respect. There should be an appropriate discussion, and this matter should be referred to our bipartisan committee. There is no benefit to our national security in these matters not being bipartisan. We must be in lockstep with our security agencies.

If this power, for example, with respect to dual citizens is something that our agencies require, then our parliament must give it the most earnest consideration. It must come before our committee, and we must have a serious, mature, reasoned debate because we have to be the voice of reason in these very challenging times. We must understand what we are confronting. We are confronting something that is almost a nation-state, a caliphate, whose goal is to spread itself into a worldwide caliphate. So for people to say that this is not going to come and visit our shores, I say: 'Well, it has visited our shores on a number of occasions and is continuing to do so.' I know for a fact that there are a very large number of individuals who are on our national security authorities' radar. The purpose of my contribution is to support the member for Bass's motion and to reinforce why we need to continue to have a mature discussion about the laws that our country needs to keep us safe. As I said, I have no greater responsibility than to keep my country and my community safe.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly the member for Bass, for proposing the motion and allowing me to second it. I would like to thank those members who have spoken to date in support of the motion. I do not want to appear to be countercultural, but I want to make some comments about context, if I may.

Australia is remarkable country. The member for Bass knows very well that we have the third highest proportion of overseas-born people in our community. I tell you that they are from all four corners of the earth, of every faith, every culture, every race. I tell you too that, if cultural diversity were a problem, we would have the most significant problems in the world; but I have to say we do not. I make this point because this motion is about terrorism and about people who have adopted terrorist means to pursue totally unacceptable objectives. But we ought not to allow ourselves to demonise whole communities because of the actions of individuals. These measures are about terrorism. To put it into context: what sort of numbers are we talking about? The government says 250 Australians, some very young, have become ensnared in the evil ideology of the Daesh cult; and ASIO currently has 400 priority counter-terrorism investigations.

We know that 30 Australians travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistani between 1990 and 2010 to train in extremist camps or to fight with extremists. Twenty-five of these individuals returned; 19 of them engaged in activities of concern to security after their return to Australia; and eight was subsequently convicted of terrorism related offences. Why do I mention this? I mention it because these are the sorts of numbers that we are in fact talking about. I do not want these measures to be demonising any part of our community other than terrorists.

The motion that we are discussing outlines what is being done, and I want to say that all of that is essential. I have had the opportunity of being the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, proudly supporting our society and our immigration programs; and I have been the Attorney-General of Australia—I am very conscious of the need for our society to be focused on accepting people of different faiths, different religions, and different cultures, while recognising that it is a two-way street. We accept you with your differences but we ask you, when you become part of our society, to accept that there are some rules that are for us all, to protect us all, and to protect the nature of our society. That is the rule of law. You have a chance to vote in elections, but there is an expectation that you will adhere to the rule of law.

It is in that context that I think it is very important that people understand why, and the member for Holt brought this out in terms of what he is experiencing in his electorate. It is because the safety of all Australians is involved. Terrorism—where you think you can go out and behead people; you can deprive them of their lives to pursue a particular objective—has no place in our society. People expect that the government is going to take every reasonable measure that it can to contain that threat. That is why supporting this motion is of such importance. But I emphasise again that we cannot afford to marginalise those people who would not be part of this because they feel that in some way we are unwelcoming. We need to remain a welcoming society for those who accept the commitments that Australian citizenship offers, and that includes the commitment to gender equity, the commitment to English as the national language, and the commitment to the rule of law—the measures set out in the National agenda for a multicultural Australia, which we have adopted now over generations. (Time expired)

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

The opposition has sought—both during this government and during the terms of the previous Rudd and Gillard governments—to have bipartisan support on national security. There could not be stronger supporters of that general attitude than the members for Gellibrand and Holt and myself. Support from members of the opposition for this motion is clear. Support for the views of the member for Holt—and agreement with the overall perspective put by the member for Berowra about what a great country Australia is—is also implicit in our attitudes.

To give some context to this motion: the opposition has worked hard to improve and ultimately supported two tranches of national security legislation that the parliament has debated over the last 12 months and, more recently, the metadata legislation. There were valid privacy concerns with that legislation but, under the leadership of Bill Shorten and Mark Dreyfus, the opposition took the view—which is unfashionable with some—that the legislation was important and that it was needed. After all, police and other agencies already routinely access metadata. The Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, said that between July and September last year, metadata was used in 92 per cent of counter-terrorism investigations, 87 per cent of child protection investigations, and 79 per cent of serious organised crime investigations. So far, this access has been unaccountable: not balanced by privacy considerations, not properly supervised by parliament, and not monitored by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Now—because we have passed this legislation together—this is all regularised. The dimensions of this problem were very clearly outlined by the member for Braddon in his remarks as to the number of people who were and are involved.

I think this parliament, with its support for expenditure by the national security agencies and with its legislation, is working cooperatively to protect the safety of the Australian people. That is clearly, as both the member for Holt and the member for Berowra said, the greatest responsibility of Australian parliamentarians. The parliament needs to find the right balance between security and protection of privacy rights of individuals. Labor insisted that the original draft of the metadata legislation be sent back to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I suspect that the government will agree that these proposals on dual citizenship be sent back to that committee, which has done a great job in sending back to parliament its recommendations on these important matters.

One point I would like to correct is in relation to the figures on expenditure on non-defence national security by activity in billions of dollars. They clearly show that between the years 2005 and 2007 and after, when Labor was elected, expenditure went up and has been maintained at a very high level in constant dollars. The claim that we are not interested in this issue is clearly wrong, as seen both by our actions in legislation and by expenditure. Through the intelligence committee, Labor fought for improved oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and by the Ombudsman, and for sunset clauses. We successfully argued for the enforcement of strict standards of data security, including the requirement of stored data to be encrypted, and a system of mandatory notifications of data breaches or privacy alerts. We also insisted that a public interest advocate protect journalists, based on a similar system already in place in Victoria.

Labor's view is that finding the right balance between security and freedom is an ongoing task. The government needs to respond to national security risks in a flexible manner, taking new measures, as the member for Braddon advocates. That is why Labor established an office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Initially the current government, through the member for Kooyong, took a rather ideological view about red tape on this. Fortunately, the kind of IPA, ideological zealotry that constantly downgrades safety of Australians was not adopted by the government. I am thankful that they woke up, listened and reinstated this particular position.

The process shows, both in legislation and expenditure, the importance of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in fighting for reforms. We are Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We are loyal to all Australians. We can expect in the next few weeks and months that Labor will continue its responsible attitude towards national security.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate and thank the member for Bass for raising this most important issue today in parliament. The most important priority for any government is to protect and keep our nation safe and secure. As the Prime Minister has said, when it comes to national security there can be no shortcuts. Currently we are experiencing testing times, and this government is committed to ensuring the safety of our law-abiding citizens.

We cannot underestimate the threat of terrorism present in modern-day Australia. Since the Bali bombings in 2002, which claimed the lives of 88 innocent Australians, we have been alert to the dangers of those who seek to destroy our freedom and our way of life. In recent times we have seen Australian lives lost in Sydney as result of radical, religious extremism. We are also aware of a number of Australians in Syria and Iraq fighting alongside the Daesh death cult. This indicates the scope of the problem and the need to fight terrorism both at home and abroad. Specifically, the government must work diligently to do all within its power to halt terrorism at its source. Australian counter-terrorism agencies must be able to share information in a secure manner with traditional allies and regional partners to prevent potential terrorist attacks. This is why I have been a strong supporter of this government's actions to ensure that our law enforcement and crime agencies are well equipped to respond to the ongoing evolution of terrorism threats. I am also committed to ensuring that those Australians who commit criminal acts in the name of a foreign death cult are dealt with appropriately.

We are aware of 30 Australian who travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan between 1990 and 2010 to train at extremist camps—some fighting with extremists. Twenty-five of these individuals returned to Australia, with 19 continuing to engage in activities of security concern following their return. Eight were subsequently convicted of terrorism related offences, with five still serving prison sentences. The number of Australians with hands-on terrorist experiences in Syria and Iraq is now several times what it was in Afghanistan. And the challenges are much greater.

The government has already strengthened Australia's national security laws and provided law enforcement agencies with increased powers to address the threat from foreign fighters, including the ability to arrest or place control orders on those who return. In addition to these measures, I will be supporting the government's measures to remove Australian citizenship status from dual citizens who are proven to be involved in acts of terrorism against our great nation. These are indeed harsh measures but they are entirely fitting of the crime. Let us not for one minute forget that these extremists are fighting against the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force; men and women who are placing their lives on the line to protect Australia's values and freedoms.

Recently foiled terrorist plots on Australian soil demonstrate the need to maintain and support both the Australian Defence Force and other government agencies at the very forefront of counterterrorism actions. While the urgency to address the national security threat has intensified over the past 12 months, this government has been committed to enhancing the safety of Australians since our election. In the lead-up to the 2013 federal election one of the biggest issues I encountered in my electorate was residents' concern for the need for Australia to secure its borders. This government has successfully stopped the boats and in turn has not only prevented the loss of life at sea but has delivered budget savings that can now be redirected to enhancing our security.

Last week the Prime Minister stated, 'We need to bring the same drive, focus and clarity of purpose to countering terrorism that resulted in stopping the boats under Operation Sovereign Borders'. This is why the 2015 budget included $1.2 billion in new funding for national security, building upon the $1 billion announced last year. In total the government is spending over $35 billion on defence, national security and law enforcement. This includes: investing in our own security; protecting our borders from terrorism and crime; preventing Australians from joining or supporting terrorist organisations; and improving collaboration with our community and within our region to address the uncertainties we face, including terrorism.

There is no single measure to address the terrorism threat. The government has identified a suite of measures that together will best equip us in this fight both at home and abroad. We must not waver from our obligation to Australia and its people. I commend the government for the measures introduced and will work closely with my colleagues to ensure that we continue to equip our agencies with the necessary powers to combat terrorism threats. I commend this motion to parliament.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

According to the United Nations, sexual violence in conflict is one of the greatest moral issues of our time. And I agree. It is a moral issue we face now and it has been a moral issue for time immemorial.

Lamentations recounts that 'women have been ravished in Zion, and virgins in the towns of Judah'. Historically, rape was characterised as a private crime, and not a matter of universal human rights. It was considered a crime against a woman's honour, rather than an act of gross physical violence. However, the use of violence as a weapon of war, as an orchestrated, institutionalised, industrialised terror tactic as a combat tool is a more recent phenomenon, and a horrifying and unimaginable one at that.

During the Second World War, the Japanese created 'comfort women'; and the Soviet army is thought to have raped anywhere between one million and two million women in eastern Europe and Germany. But, as always with this despicable crime, who knows what the numbers really were? A 2002 Guardian piece entitled 'They raped every German female from eight to 80' said that one doctor deduced that, out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result of suicide. According to the United Nations, and despite fact that some evidence of sexual atrocities was received by the Nuremberg tribunal, these crimes were not expressly charged. Indictments before the Tokyo tribunal did expressly charge rape and received such evidence, and the Tokyo judgement referred to rape. General Matsui was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity based in part on evidence of rape. However, none of the women who had been raped were called to testify, and the subject of women's victimisation was only given incidental attention.

Sixty years on, we again heard of horrendous violence against women and children during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Estimates of the total number of Bosnian women who were raped range from 10,000 to 50,000, but again it is difficult to provide an exact number. As David Crowe says in his book, War Crimes, Genocide and Justice: A Global History:

What was particularly evil about these crimes was the creation of special "rape camps" where Bosniak women were repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted by Serbian soldiers, and then forced to return pregnant to their families in shame. Part of the reason for this practice was to impregnate Muslim women, thus defiling their cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage.

In June 1996, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia issued its first indictment that dealt exclusively with sexual violence and adopted rules that made it easier for victims to give evidence. The tribunal represented a watershed moment for sexual violence in conflict and now it is a regular aspect of the United Nations' work.

But to date the focus on sexual violence has been on state actors. What we are seeing with Daesh is a non-state actor engaging in some of the most unspeakable acts of sexual violence. What we are seeing is different from other uses of sexual violence in conflict. Women's bodies have become part of the terrain of conflict, according to a new report by Amnesty International. Rape and sexual abuse are not just a by-product of war but are used as a deliberate military strategy. The United Nations last month estimated that Daesh has forced some 1,500 women, teenage girls and boys into sexual slavery. A UN envoy on sexual violence in conflict found that girls from Iraq and Syria were stripped, sold and made to undergo over a dozen virginity reparation surgeries. The intense shame that accompanies these acts is too much for many women to bear, with a number later committing suicide.

As I said earlier, this is the greatest moral issue of our time, as described by the UN's Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, Zainab Bangura. It requires a multifaceted approach that includes more female peacekeepers, more women in senior positions in peace operations, early warning indicators, promoting accountability and fighting impunity, including by enacting criminal law reforms, ensuring victim reparations and sending all evidence possible to the International Criminal Court. I encourage those participating in the high-level review of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 late this year to consider an appropriate response to this new combat tool by non-state actors—the violation and torture of women and children through rape, prostitution and sexual slavery. There are of course countless reasons to destroy, degrade or terrorism in all its forms. However, for me the use of sexual violence— (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.