Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be involved in this debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2006, given the way the debate was led by the minister; the very good response from the member for Barton, the ALP spokesperson on Defence; and the very good contribution from the member for Wakefield, who has just spoken. Certainly the member for Wakefield’s speech indicated a working knowledge of what it is that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force require in circumstances where they are called out.

One of the reasons this bill is before the parliament is that in the past the Australian Labor Party has insisted that legislation relating to national security be the subject of statutory review. Members opposite were highly critical of this move, but the ALP’s stance—back in 2000, I think, in relation to the bill that came through then—has shown its worth and borne fruit in these amendments. I say that because these amendments are the product of proper review and analysis by capable, competent people. This review was carried out by Anthony Blunn AO and General John Baker ACDSM and the report was tabled in parliament many months ago. If I had a criticism, that criticism would be that the government could have—and probably should have—moved on these amendments some time ago.

The government sat on the review’s report. It is interesting that once again, on an issue of critical importance to our national security, we are being asked to debate important legislation under a tight time frame—on the eve of the Commonwealth Games. I am sure the government want this legislation through so that they have the measures contained in this bill available to them before the Commonwealth Games begin. I wonder why it is that, once again, we have such a tight time frame for debate on issues of national security and national importance.

The review carried out by Blunn and Baker was an important one, and it made a number of observations. The member for Barton has already gone through most of these, so I will not go through them all again. However, I intend to go through some. Blunn and Baker’s observations included the observation that existing procedures for civil call-out have been time consuming and complex and have had a capacity to limit the effectiveness of the call-out while also being restrictive by focusing on siege and hostage situations. The review showed that security threats may be mobile or may occur at different geographical locations. Once again, the member for Barton expanded on this. The review also found that restrictions imposed on the use of reserve forces were unjustified. I will talk about the reserve forces a little later on.

The review also highlighted an unacceptable lack of clarity in respect of the legal responsibilities of ADF members, who could be called upon to undertake tasks in the various state and territory jurisdictions of Australia. Probably one of the most important and crucial findings of the review was that the existing legislation did not reflect the evolving threat environment. I think it is a major problem when legislation as crucial as this lags. I suspect that part of the reason that it did lag was that simply not enough work went into the original legislation. Certainly it was not quick enough nor was there adequate review of the legislation by the government.

Members would be aware that a Defence submission was provided to the Senate. The Senate pointed out a number of things which complemented the review and the legislation—for instance, Defence’s submission pointed out that terrorist techniques now commonly involve the use of innocent bystanders as targets, rather than the taking of hostages; that mass civilian casualties are often the terrorists’ objective; that suicide is now a common method of attack by terrorists; and that warning times of impending action may be extremely short or indeed non-existent.

Defence also suggested that cooperation between agencies and jurisdictions is essential to obtaining better intelligence, to conducting more sophisticated surveillance and border controls and to providing adequate warning. As a former minister for police in a state jurisdiction, I was constantly appalled at the lack of cooperation not just between the various jurisdictions within Australia but sometimes within the internal workings of organisations.

One of the most crucial aspects of law enforcement and keeping our community safe is the sharing of intelligence. To achieve that, there must be trust between the jurisdictions and there must be trust between the agencies. There must also be trust between the people who run those agencies. In the face of events over the last few years, there has been a big improvement in these areas but I think we still have a long way to go, not just between federal agencies but between states, territories and Commonwealth agencies across the board.

The Defence submission also observed that there is likely to be a greater call for anticipatory action involving the ADF in order to respond to intelligence and to secure potential targets indicated in assessments. The things I said just a few minutes ago underline just how crucial it is to ensure that we do try to stay in front of terrorist actions, and this will only happen if there is a good sharing of intelligence. The Defence submission also noted that incidents may go beyond one site and involve rapid movement and that chemical, biological and radiological agents may be used in a situation. Of course in situations like the latter one, authorities need all the expertise they can get.

It is understandable then that this review of the legislation would observe the need for flexible call-out procedures and also the need to enable effective preparation and training of the ADF in situations where they may be called out in support of state or territory agencies involved in domestic security operations. It is incumbent upon this government and the ADF to recruit, skill, train, outfit and support members of the ADF so as to ensure they meet the high standards and have the capacity to meet the changing threat environment.

These amendments also extend the areas of ADF involvement into aviation, offshore marine and designated critical areas of infrastructure. They have already been dealt with, so I do not intend to go into them. But, importantly, as was noted by the previous speaker, this bill also goes to the area of legal authority, to enable ADF members to take necessary actions in achieving their tasks. It also gives them legal protections. However, it does not give them authority to operate outside Australian domestic criminal law. Members of the ADF must have legal authority to carry out their tasks, and they must also have legal protection to ensure their own security when operating within the law. They must know that, in the event that they are called out, the law is clear and their position is not in any way compromised by interactions between differing state, territory or federal laws.

The recent case of the special forces soldier who was hung out to dry by his superiors following an ambush situation in East Timor is, in my view, a blot on our military history. Members of the ADF doing their job must be protected by the system. They must be protected by clear and concise law, and they must be protected by their superiors. Most importantly, we in this place and those in the other place have a responsibility to ensure that our laws are clear, that they are concise and that they do protect the men and women of the ADF who are on the sharp end, doing a pretty fine job on behalf of our nation.

Like the member for Barton, I also want to reassure people who have contacted me that these amendments do not change laws in relation to the industrial situation in Australia. This bill does not amend section 51G of the existing act which provides that the Chief of the Defence Force must not stop or restrict any protest, dissent or assembly or industrial action, except where there is a reasonable likelihood of death or serious injury to persons or serious damage to property.

In conclusion, I say to the government that, in an ever-changing threat environment, reviewing legislation is just one of many tasks that government must be on top of when it comes to security issues. Clear and flexible call-out guidelines are important to all in the ADF, as are close relationships and good arrangements for the sharing of intelligence between various jurisdictions and state and Commonwealth agencies. So too is the need to ensure that there is clear understanding between the Chief of the Defence Force and state and territory commissioners of police in respect of a call-out of the ADF in support of civilian authorities.

It is also crucial to ensure that appropriate members of the community are recruited for and retained by the ADF, including the Defence Reserves. This is particularly true when the threat is constantly changing and evolving and not restricted to one geographical location. Australia is a big country, a big nation, and the government must recruit people to the Defence Reserves and support and retain them there. I believe a major review of how we go about attracting people into our Reserve is crucial. However, what we cannot afford in this particular area is a government more accustomed to procrastination than to action and innovation. Having said that, I join with other members of the opposition and support this bill.

See this speech in context