Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010 and, in so doing, I have a couple of comments about a couple of risk provisos that I believe should be put into place. Firstly, this is an example of what Australians do best. We are innovative overseas. We do not tend to impose our standards overseas and we have great capacity in the history of being able to use local resources and work with local communities to achieve the goals. This bill will in fact allow a process in which this can be happening in a more organised and formal fashion. It also allows a tremendous conjunction between Defence, policing agencies, and public and private sectors in delivering the sort of aid and assistance that we believe would be necessary as a result of this act being passed.

The regions where I believe we should be most active are those where Australia has its sphere of influence—that is, in the Pacific Islands, South-East Asia and, to some extent, India and the Middle East. I would urge that we do not go too far beyond those boundaries. The types of incidents are obvious, especially those of natural disasters of the types that we have seen in our region in recent times. Can I also urge that there are other incidents that are unrelated to natural disasters where Australia has a proud history and where I think, under the auspices of this bill, we can be even more active—for example, a disease called the Nipah virus, which was detected in Malaysia some years ago. It was a virus disease affecting pigs and, through direct contact with pigs, humans. Through the excellence of Australian researchers under the auspices, as I understand it, of the Australian Biosecurity CRC for Emerging Infectious Disease where they worked with the Malaysians, and the integrated efforts of scientists around the world, they discovered what the disease was. It is a disease of some interest in Australia, because the Nipah virus is very closely related to the Hendra virus—an example where a corps properly established would quickly be even more active. I can also think of another example in the agricultural context where Australians can do what we do best, with regard to new crop rotations, minimum tillage, use of fertilisers and water conservation and that is to actually apply what we have succeeded with in this country to regions of the world where it will have its greatest benefit. I would urge acceptance of the bill so as to expedite that.

The benefits to recipients are enormous, to families, to communities in the recipient areas and to governments. But there are also enormous benefits to the providers. One of the great disadvantages of being an island is that not enough of us get off it and not enough people actually come to understand what the challenges are overseas. I am not talking about the holiday to Bali; I am talking about experiencing life in other communities around the world. Therefore there are enormous benefits to people who are expert in what they are doing here in Australia actually applying that expertise and learning something of the culture of people in our region. They themselves are enriched as a result of this experience.

I do have some provisos. I want an understanding of the risks that are involved. For example, there must be very careful screening of would-be candidates and those who want to participate. I would say that there would have to be thorough briefing in advance and early selection of team leadership for whatever project is contemplated. There needs to be a clear statement of objectives so that people have something in addition to goodwill and their own expertise. They must understand what they are there to do, what the KPIs are and the expected time frames involved. The deployment must be safe for all participants. It must have adequate protection: legislative protection, health and insurance and other protections. At the same time there must be support for families at home. As one who has worked overseas a good deal of my career, I know the pressure that goes on families remaining and they are all too often forgotten. Having said that, as with any military deployment there is the essence and the essential of some degree of post-deployment debriefing and counselling.

I have a couple of recommendations, if I may. There should be developed a register of interested persons and their areas of expertise so that well in advance of Australia making a decision under this act to deploy people we know who is available, what their expertise is and what the limits might be. The best way of establishing that is some sort of online facility where expressions of interest could be sought. It will then allow the department to do that preliminary vetting that is so necessary to make sure that the person is appropriate to the task and is capable of surviving in the overseas country, let alone lending their expertise. I mentioned the identification of potential project leaders. They may come from the public sector, the private sector; they may come from defence; they may come from policing organisations. But they should be identified and their availability understood, so that expectations are matched to deliverables. Country specific templates for countries for all participants could well be worked on in advance so that people understand the risks and they understand the opportunities of the employment they are contemplating when they are there and after they have returned. Given the brevity of time, my last recommendation would be to ensure that no lessons are lost, that anybody becoming contractually bound to participate in a project of this nature would also agree to actually prepare a report on their deployment within a limited period of time of returning—eight weeks would appear to me to be reasonable—so that they get the maximum benefit and the country in which they have been deployed gets the benefit but, most importantly, we learn lessons. I commend the bill to the Senate.