Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is perhaps an unfortunate fact of life that we are having, given the international situation, to debate the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2006. Having said that, it is a bill I strongly support, and I welcome the fact that the opposition is also giving its backing to the government in this important legislative change. I do not see that the matters raised in the pious second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Barton should be dealt with in this particular environment. They are not major matters. I want to say how pleased I am that on occasion the parliament can work together to improve the security of Australia.

This bill follows several others over recent years which have facilitated amendments to various Australian acts as a consequence of the sad but real increased presence of terrorism in the world today. Speakers on both sides of the House have recognised this changed environment, the fact that the global psyche is somewhat different and the fact that we now must be ever vigilant about the need to, whenever necessary, bring forward legislative changes to keep up with any new threats which arise. The bill proposes amendments to the Defence Act 1903 with exactly that underlying motivation. It is pretty clear that in the 103 years since the Defence Act 1903 was enacted the world has become quite a different place. Changes are clearly required from time to time, but I suspect that the changes in the international world situation have been more dramatic in recent years than in earlier years.

The bill has the primary function of streamlining and overseeing the use of Australian Defence Force knowledge, assets, skills and expertise, when required, to offer more efficient high-level protection to Australian government assets. Threats can come via sea through hostile ships, through land based organisations and from the air, as we saw through the September 11 tragedy in the United States. The bill will simplify the process by which the Australian Defence Force can be called into action promptly and effectively to counteract any arising threat.

The bill also makes clear that the ADF must only be called in as a last resort—that was a point also made by the member for Werriwa—and that, in spite of the fact that they may be the best equipped and best manned to defend Australia during such threats, they are still to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the protective forces and the governments of the states and territories that they are assisting. I think that is a really important, fundamental principle that in a federation we must all recognise.

The bill authorises the use of the ADF to counteract threats to Australian government assets such as transit systems and venues of mass gatherings such as sports events for the purpose of protecting the assets as well as sustaining human life. Of course, the Australian Defence Force can also act in these circumstances to protect assets that are not actually technically assets of the Australian government. In addition, infrastructure that is not inhabited but the disabling or destruction of which might indirectly cause injury or loss of life will also be able to be protected by the Australian Defence Force under the changes in this bill. These would include, for instance, power stations in which disruption to power could cause problems for the patients at hospitals and so on. In the situation where a Commonwealth asset is under threat by air, the ADF is recognised as the sole authority that is in any position to react to and neutralise such a danger. In all threat situations, the Australian Defence Force would of course work in conjunction with police assets.

This bill is not about doing away with federalism and taking away the rights and powers of the states and territories; it is about clarifying the circumstances in which the Australian Defence Force will be able to be called into action by the states where there is desperate need. This bill is all about ensuring that the sovereign rights of those states and territories will be recognised during times of heightened threat. The bill outlines the specific responsibilities of the forces in such circumstances, the due process that must be followed to make sure that such military manoeuvres are within the law and the requirements of ADF members in such situations. The ADF currently has authorisation under legislation to take action onshore in the prevention of terrorism. The permission for such action is currently authorised under the executive powers of the government. That arrangement does not give the ADF the same power and protections as given to any land based activities. That abnormality is rectified by the bill.

All of us would agree that it is preferable that consultation should be made, if possible, with the relevant government of the state or territory that is under threat, but one would appreciate that in this bill there is provision for prompt action to be taken when an urgent situation arises and when time is of the essence. The bill, as you would expect with a reasonable bill introduced by the coalition government, includes safeguards, including that the Governor-General, controlling ministers and the Prime Ministers are key to authorising certain requests for ADF action. In initiating the ADF action, authorising ministers must always consider Australia’s international obligations. That would be a matter much to the heart of the honourable member for Denison. In a changing world, with the evolution of new and dangerous threats to Australia, the changes set out in this bill are vital to ensure that our Defence Force and the laws and procedures by which they are governed keep pace with the very real requirements of peace and safety in the Australia of 2006.

We have an evolving threat environment, and all of us are concerned about it. We all might have different responses at different times to what we see as being the threat, but this threat environment is presenting increasing challenges to state, territory and federal governments. The scope of the threat outlined within the statutory review has been reinforced by recent terrorist operations, both regionally and globally. It is interesting to note that terrorist techniques now commonly use innocent bystanders as targets rather than simply as hostages. Mass civilian casualties may be a terrorist objective. Suicide is commonly used by terrorists. Warning times of impending action may be very short or non-existent. Deterrence is not a realistic concept against terrorist groups or individuals welcoming martyrdom in support of their cause. Much greater reliance must now be placed on intelligence, surveillance and border controls to provide adequate warning and a first-line defence.

There is likely to be greater call for anticipatory action possibly involving the ADF to secure potential targets indicated in intelligence assessments. The approval process for the authorisation of military assistance to the civilian authority after call-out must be available at very short notice or delegated at the time of call-out in limited circumstances, such as APEC or M2006. Incidents may go beyond a single site and consist of a series of situations or involve rapid movement rather than a static stronghold. The use of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agents in urban environments cannot be ruled out. A terrorist incident at one site might prompt the need for concurrent protection of other targets across Australia.

The bill currently before the chamber includes nine areas that are the focus for amendments: the use of reserve forces in domestic security operations, the identification of ADF personnel, public notification of some ADF activities, ADF powers to resolve mobile terrorist incidents, expedited call-out procedures, critical infrastructure protection, the role of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the creation of an aviation division within part IIIAAA and the creation of an offshore division within the same part. I mentioned that this is a very important bill. It is a bill that is fortunate to enjoy bipartisan support. I hope that it has a speedy passage because, given the environment of 2006, we must remain ever vigilant. The minister and the government are to be commended on this legislation. I hope the House rejects the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Barton. This is an important bill and it is important that it proceeds immediately. It is important that it be enshrined on the statute books because the result will be a much safer Australia, and that is a good thing.

See this speech in context