Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the primary responsibility of governments to keep its citizens safe and that is something I have been reflecting on in recent days, as we here in parliament are operating under increased security measures. We are told that the increased security and restrictions here in parliament will be the norm and in fact necessary in order to keep this place safe from the threat of terrorism.

It has been interesting to contrast those events with some other events that have occurred recently. I want to refer specifically to the issue of the threat of Ebola in some African nations and to the issue of climate change. People will wonder why I link those three things together: the threat of terrorism, the impacts of climate change and the threats from the emerging Ebola pandemic in Africa. I do that because, when we are in the midst of an issue such as terrorism, it is important to take a step back and reflect on what are the real risks that the Australian nation faces.

I will start with the Ebola virus. Viruses, like other dangers that we are currently facing, do not recognise borders. They cannot be defeated by air strikes or by arresting people who appear to be driving a car close to a nuclear facility. But they do impact on all of us. The situation in west Africa is a crisis and it does pose some serious threats to the Australian nation. This is not just because here in Australia we may be under threat from Ebola, but because of the impact it has in those nations. When nation states collapse, when countries fail, then the humanitarian and refugee crisis worsens and the movement of desperate people seeking safety, security and basic needs such as food and water, places increasing pressure upon all of us.

The poor west African nation of Liberia is experiencing major economic hardship as a consequence of Ebola. We expect Liberian government revenue to drop by an estimated 10 per cent. Food prices are escalating in Liberia. We have the Liberian government providing subsidies, yet the Ebola virus is causing huge economic problems, with a range of impacts, not just on the economy, but also on the health system of Liberia. Nurses and trained medical practitioners are dying in the fight against Ebola. It is not just in Liberia; it is happening in Sierra Leone and Guinea.

It is worth thinking about what sort of response we have offered as a nation. What we are being told by the humanitarian workers on the ground is that this is not simply a case of money; this is a case that requires logistical support. People on the ground are telling us that they want a military response. They want people who are able to quarantine those health workers. Ordinary members of the African community need the support of boots on the ground. And they are not getting it from nations such as Australia, despite the threat of Ebola not being restricted by national borders, despite the impact of that pandemic on the African nation and despite the flow-on effects in terms of the movement of refugee populations.

It is interesting that at the same time as we are having the debate about terrorism, on the weekend we saw tens of thousands of Australians joining a global campaign demanding action and leadership on climate change. We have to acknowledge that climate change is an existential threat. It is an enormous existential threat. In my home state of Victoria, we experienced some of the worst bushfires in the history of that state. We had a series of heatwaves that were responsible for more deaths than the Black Saturday fires. We are hearing from the scientific community, who make it very clear that the link between those events and climate change is very real.

It is very real. It poses future threats to our food and agricultural sector, to our water resources and to our air quality, and it requires an urgent response. This is a real and existential threat to the Australian community. Much like Ebola, it requires the sort of effort that is necessary to ensure that people are not exposed to diseases such as dengue and to the spread of Ross River virus and other vector-borne diseases that will put the Australian community at serious risk. When the Abbott government says they are listening to experts on national security, I only wish that they would listen to the experts in the scientific community on the issue of climate change as well.

That brings me to the threat of terrorism. Like my colleague Senator Scott Ludlam, I believe very strongly that what we are facing in the form of the Islamic State is a group of people who have no regard for the sanctity of human life. I do not want to trivialise terrorism. I am not blind to the threat that extremists like IS pose to the Australian community. We have seen terrorist attacks in London, Madrid and Bali and we are very much awake to the dangers that people face. But we need to put that threat in perspective. We need to put it in perspective when it comes to comparing some of the other existential dangers that the Australian community faces.

I am worried that our response has been disproportionate, and that it ensures that Australians who follow the Islamic faith are subjected to abuse and vilification. That is also a threat to those communities. I am also concerned that our involvement, in terms of putting troops on the ground, risks making us less safe. One of the great lies in this debate has been to wilfully ignore the most obvious reality—that is, that when you commit to sending troops to fight in a conflict such as the current war in the Middle East, it will not lead to greater security threats to Australians. Of course it does.

In fact, we have been so desperate to avoid acknowledging that reality that we have gagged our defence agencies, not allowing them to express that most self-evident view. Of course, I am disappointed that it is not simply the Abbott government; it is a commitment that is supported by the Labor Party as well. It was only earlier in the week that John Howard admitted that sending Australian troops to war based on false intelligence was a source of embarrassment. Embarrassment does not cut it. When we are committing Australian soldiers to fight a war that is largely a product of our earlier intervention in the Middle East, when we are committing Australian soldiers to fight a war which will mean the Australian community will be made less safe rather than more safe, when we are committing Australian troops to fighting a war on terrorism but ignoring the very real threat that is faced from communicable diseases such as Ebola virus, when we are committing Australian troops ostensibly to fight an external threat in the form of terrorism but ignoring what is one of the most significant threats that our country faces, then you do have to ask some serious questions about whether what we are doing at the moment is what is the primary responsibility of any government—that is, to keep the Australian community safe.

Unfortunate, we know that there is a potential for governments of all persuasions to use the issue of terrorism for their own political interests. That is why we needed a debate in this parliament before committing those troops to war and that is why the Greens will be committed to fighting all threats to the Australian community, not just simply the threat of terrorism. (Time expired)