Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party has a long and proud tradition of seeking to place national security well above partisan politics. Amongst other forums, we seek to do that through the processes of the PJCIS. Protecting the security of Australians is a fundamental responsibility of government, and as a party of government we take that responsibility very seriously. We also understand that exercising that responsibility requires coordinated action by parliament and the executive, and it's on that basis that we offer bipartisanship on national security issues.

Bipartisanship requires two parties; the hint is in the name. It's becoming apparent that the only party committed to it is us. The government seems determined to undermine it in relation to the bill that is before this chamber, the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019. The government rushed this legislation through PJCIS, but, despite that, coalition and Labor members on that committee worked diligently through various community concerns and provided their detailed report on 4 April 2019, making 18 substantive recommendations. These recommendations were not landed upon lightly. They were the product of debate, discussion and deliberation amongst all of the members of the committee. I would make this observation: contrary to the assertions of some, for us bipartisanship does not mean automatic agreement. What it does mean is a serious commitment to dealing with the policy issues as they are presented to us by the experts and dealing seriously with the community concerns that are presented to us, and we do that through the processes of the PJCIS, negotiating in entirely good faith with the other members of that committee.

The recommendations of the committee addressed very real concerns that the bill may have unconstitutional or unintended consequences. The purpose and effect of these recommendations were set out earlier by the shadow minister for home affairs and the shadow Attorney-General in the other place. The government has rejected four of these recommendations in full and a further six in part. People need to understand how serious this state of affairs is. It is the first time since 2013 that the government has explicitly rejected PJCIS recommendations. It's unwise on the policy front because these recommendations are important, but, more broadly, it undermines the operation of the PJCIS. What faith can members of the committee now place in the undertakings and commitments that are made by coalition members of that committee? The Minister for Home Affairs seems determined to undermine his colleagues. The government has walked away from bipartisanship on this occasion, and on that basis we will be departing from our usual practice and will be moving amendments in this chamber.

Looking at this debate, you get the sense that our government is searching for a way to manufacture conflict. It was brought on suddenly with an argument about urgency. We need to be very clear: this is not a problem that has suddenly arisen for Australia. Since 2013, when the government was elected, Australia, like many other Western nations, has seen some of its citizens head to Syria and Iraq. And for the past few years Australia, like other nations, has had to decide how to deal with these citizens when they wish to return. In a real contrast to Australia, the United Kingdom dealt with this some years ago. The bill in that country that the government likes to compare this bill to was introduced in 2015. In the four years since those decisions taken in the UK it's reported that up to 40 foreign fighters have re-entered Australia. It makes you wonder how the government's stated commitment to national security, how the urgency of this bill can be reconciled with the historical record in relation to foreign fighters and their return to our country.

I think there has been a great deal of confusion in the public debate about the scope of this bill, and in particular who it affects. Published figures suggest that there are perhaps 80 people who could be affected: 20 women, 57 children and a range of men, many of whom are currently being held in Kurdish prisons. Some of the rhetoric would make it seem as though this bill is the only thing standing between Australians and a horde of foreign fighters, and those figures suggest it is plainly not. It is one of a large number of tools that our intelligence and law enforcement officials have at their disposal. Many of the people returning could well face criminal charges for having gone to an area controlled by ISIS in the first place, and others may be subject to control orders and monitoring.

There is also confusion in the public debate about the operation of the bill. The tone of the debate makes it seem as though the bill is about keeping people out of Australia. It is not. It is about managing the way that they re-enter the country. Once the minister issues a temporary exclusion order, the person affected has the right to apply for a return permit. If the person makes the application in the form and manner specified by the relevant rules, the minister must grant the permit. There is no discretion. This scheme helps to ensure that there is a proper process for that re-entry. It allows us to delay and control the return and re-entry of Australians of counterterrorism interest until appropriate protections are in place, and it enables the Minister for Home Affairs to impose conditions on those individuals once they've returned to Australia to manage any risks that they may pose. These potential conditions that may be placed on their return are contained in the legislation in an exhaustive list that details the reporting requirements that might be required—reporting about where you live, where you study and the telecommunications access that you might seek to engage in.

Labor supports the intent of this bill. We put the safety and security of Australians first. We support strong laws that are proportionate to the scale of the threat and are targeted at the threat. We seek to work in a bipartisan fashion to achieve the best outcomes for keeping our nation safe. This law needs to work to be able to efficiently and effectively achieve those objectives. That is why the PJCIS made recommendations to address some of the deficiencies in this bill, and that is why Labor will be moving amendments.

(Quorum formed)