David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to address the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill 2011. This is the second time I have risen to address this topic, given the long history of coalition support for this measure. Going back to 2009, the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, tabled the Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill, in 2010 Senator Brandis tabled the Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill and on 21 February 2011 Mr Abbott again tabled a bill in the other place. So this is yet another bill that the coalition will support looking at how and why we should support people who have been victims of terrorism overseas.

The question that some in the public may ask is: why should we put in place a scheme to support people who have been victims of terrorism overseas? Firstly, there is the issue of precedent. We have well established precedents in this country whereby we provide care for individuals who have been injured through no fault of their own. Probably the one that is most widespread and that all of us contribute to is compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance. We contribute to a scheme to ensure that people who are injured, through no fault of their own, receive care. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one where we are looking at situations where people have an inherited disability, and families have essentially inherited an obligation to care for them, through no fault of their own. We are looking for ways to provide for those people. There are also precedents in countries such as Israel; the UK, Northern Ireland in particular; and the United States, where there are well established schemes to recognise the burdens that fall upon people due to injuries received or, in the case of death, burdens that fall upon close family members, because of acts of terrorism. Generally speaking, I believe in personal responsibility and the fact that people should be taking steps to care for themselves. Some people have asked, in relation to this proposed act, why it is that we do not just require people to take out insurance. Since the 9/11 attacks, increasingly travel insurance policies have had specific exclusions for acts of terrorism. So even those people who wish to take measures to protect themselves and their families when travelling do not have options, under many policies now, to take out that measure of cover. Again, this bill is one way we can extend the precedence set for domestic situations, such as motor vehicles, to our citizens. The government has taken some steps in terms of commercial insurance onshore to give business confidence, but that does not extend to people who are travelling overseas. So there are some very strong precedents that I think support this bill, which is why the coalition has since 2009 put forward three bills to this end to give support to victims of terrorism.

The second question is why Australians are being targeted overseas. Sometimes it would be easy to assume that it was just the wrong time and the wrong place and that it was completely random. But the reality of the attacks in London, in Bali and in America is that while they may not be targeted against the individual they are definitely targeted against people with common characteristics. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has quite clearly identified in its paper Transnational terrorism: the threat to Australia that Australia is a terrorist target, both as a Western nation and in its own right. Almost without exception in the contemporary global setting, terrorism has links to extreme Islamist groups. The DFAT paper goes on to say:

Weakening the influence of the West would advance their political goals by helping undermine those Muslims they view as corrupt and open to Western influence. We are seen as standing in the way of their goal to transform the Muslim world into a Taliban-style society. According to their simplistic worldview, we are part of the Christian West which, to them, is un-Islamic and therefore illegitimate.

The core values we hold and which are intrinsic to our success as a liberal democratic culture are anathema to these extremists.

So the very things that actually define us as a nation—being a liberal Western democracy, our value of individual life, which is part of what brings us to support this measure—are the very things that make us a target to some people around the world.

It is important to recognise that there are those different world views and that whilst we continue to maintain those values that have made Australia a great place to live, a place that values individuals, we will be a target. That should not make us retreat from the defence of that world view. Particularly as we look at things like the Arab Spring unfolding, and we look at events in countries like Syria, Egypt and Tunisia, we need to understand that there are different world views, different values placed on life, and we should never be ashamed to stand up for the values that Australia represents.

As we listen to the voices of people in Egypt as they face a very uncertain time, we hear the concerns of minority communities there, such as Christian Copts. We hear the concerns of people in Syria, such as the Alawites, the Druze and, again, the Christians about the lot they will face given the regime change that may occur. The Bishop of Aleppo, for example, has highlighted that should regime change occur it would be the end of his population in Syria. Some world views and some forms of government do not have the same respect for freedom of religion, for the equality of men and women and for providing equal opportunity that we have here in Australia. Those things make us a target, but we should never back away from supporting them.

One of the particular aspects of the bill that I wish to look it is the provision in the proposed new section to enable the secretary to determine an amount payable to a primary victim which must not exceed $75,000. The $75,000 in some cases may assist somebody who has suffered either physical or mental harm. But in other cases, particularly where there has been significant physical injury or psychological harm to the point of someone not being able to work, I have to acknowledge that that amount will not cover the loss that those people will suffer financially, in quality of life and in their relationships, given the impact that these kinds of events can have on people and their families. I recognise that in some cases it may appear generous while in some cases it will be woefully inadequate.

The system tries to recognise that there are both primary victims and secondary victims and puts in place a mechanism whereby, when the primary victim—somebody who was actually at the scene of the incident and was killed at the time or within two years—passes away, close family members are entitled to make a claim for some compensation. The total claim cannot exceed $75,000, and multiple parties—siblings or children of that person—can share that.

My concerns are more about part 2 of the schedule, which presents amendments to other acts. Item 15, for example, amends the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 to ensure that these payments are not income for the purposes of assessing entitlements paid under that act, such as family tax benefit and childcare benefit. Item 16 amends the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1975 so that this payment is not regarded as compensation to recover from Medicare payments and services provided. Likewise, items 17, 18, 20 and 21 amend other acts to make sure that this payment can be used by people.

I note, though, that there are no proposed amendments in the bill to exclude the payments from the definition of income in section 8, which is the incomes test of the Social Security Act, or from the definition of asset in section 9 of the act. I would welcome any clarification from the minister as to the intent there. If you look at section 8, there is a whole list of exceptions that very clearly shows that the intent of the parliament is that, where people receive a payment in recognition of something that has occurred above and beyond normal life circumstances—and there are payments in there for a whole raft of things: for example, for people who contract HIV, for veterans for different reasons—this payment should not detract from the normal assessment of their income and other benefits. I note that there is no proposed amendment to exclude the payment from section 8 or 9 under the SSA. Likewise, there are no corresponding amendments to the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 to exclude these payments from the income and assets test definitions and applications for our veterans.

What those two omissions would mean, if I am reading this correctly, is that on the one hand the government will say to a person in these circumstances that the government recognise that something out of the ordinary and beyond the person's control has occurred and, just like the government compensate people in other situations, the person will be eligible for some compensation from the people of Australia, while on the other hand the government will say that they will treat that as an asset or as income, which may then disadvantage the person in terms of the other payments that they are receiving to manage their normal affairs. I am happy to be proven wrong. I would welcome some clarification from the minister. That concerns me because if people are already suffering injury or families have lost the income earner for their home and they see the $75,000 as some assistance—and, as I have already said, in many cases it will already be inadequate compared to the loss or disadvantage faced by people—to then have other entitlements cut as a result of receiving this money, to my mind, defeats the purpose and intent of this parliament providing that payment.

In conclusion, the coalition do support this bill. We have put forward a very similar bill several times in the past. I have spoken on this previously. We do it because the nature of Australian society is that we place a value on individual life and we recognise that we have a duty of care to those around us when things occur to them that are beyond their control. I reinforce the point that we will continue to be a target for terrorists because of the values that we hold. That should not make us back away from standing up for those. If anything, it should make us defend them all the more vigorously, which is part of what we are doing by passing this bill today. I support the bill.