Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The matters to which the member for Isaacs refers were all dealt with by the siege review. There was no criticism of the way the letter was handled within the Attorney-General's department or the reply. The Director-General of ASIO has now examined the matter, and there is no cause for criticism. I question what point the member for Isaacs is trying to make. Does he really believe that this is assisting the families of those killed in that attack?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to counter the threat of violent extremism?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hughes for his question—finally today we have a serious question on national security matters. This country is facing a situation where 100 Australians have gone to involve themselves in the conflict in Iraq and Syria; Australia is falling victim to terror being exported in conflicts which are beyond our control; we are facing 155 people supporting these groups from Australia; at least 30 Australians have been killed; there are 400 people of interest to ASIO; six plots have been foiled by the skill of our intelligence and law enforcement community; and there have been two successful terrorist attacks in Australia. In light of those situations, the opposition's stance is that we should have rushed back to our office and had a look at the protocols we have had for dealing with correspondence. That is the serious suggestion that is being put forward by the opposition today. Has there ever been a member in this House whose ego is more out of proportion to their skill and ability than the member for Isaacs?

We inherited a degraded national security situation from the previous government—a situation where they had attacked the resourcing and the powers of our agencies, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. They were cut by one-third under the tenure of the former Attorney-General—the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the country cut by fully one third. We have put four tranches of legislation through this parliament to make sure that our intelligence and law enforcement communities have the powers that they need to deal with this threat. We have spent $1.2 billion, in last year's budget and in this budget, making sure that we have the resources to deal with this threat. We have made sure that if you go to an area that we have declared within the conflict zone, and you do not have a legitimate reason for doing so, you could face a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment if you return to Australia. We have made sure that it is easier to list terrorist organisations; so, returning foreign fighters who are linked to them could face 25 years imprisonment. We have a new offence of advocating terrorism, to prohibit intentionally counselling, promoting, encouraging or urging the doing of a terrorist act. We have created control orders so that, if foreign fighters come back to Australia, we can make sure they do not pose a threat to the Australian community. We have lowered the arrest thresholds, which has allowed our agencies to stop those six terrorism plots from going forward.

These are the sorts of things that a serious government does when faced with a national security crisis—not the trivial, petty nonsense we have heard from those opposite today.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, on a point of order: one wonders how a minister of any kind could answer such a hypothetical question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Madam Speaker: the questions have gone to the protocols that are adopted by the government. It is a fair question.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House has made the point that it is hypothetical and therefore in breach of the standing orders. I have listened to the Manager of Opposition Business. I find it is out of order. I call the member for Hinkler.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is the Assistant Minister for Employment—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, I submit to you that the reason why the question is not hypothetical is it is based on the specifics of something that has occurred.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and those circumstances—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

He will resume his seat! The question was clearly hypothetical.