Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2006. We live in changing times. Preparation for serious emergencies has taken on a new dimension since the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. Attacks continue around the globe, and no country is impervious to these hostile attacks.

To list only some of the devastating international terrorist attacks since the deaths of 2,986 civilians in the September 11 attacks, in a snapshot: there were 21 Western tourists killed in Tunisia, 202 killed in Bali, 45 killed in Morocco, 12 killed in the attacks on the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, 27 killed in attacks on British targets in Istanbul, 192 killed in Madrid, nine killed in the attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, 35 killed in Egypt and 56 killed and over 700 injured in the July 7 London bombings.

We know that the threat of terrorism in Australia is very real; it is not hypothetical. Anybody who takes this threat lightly puts our country in grave danger. No country can be too prepared. We know that the nature of the threat is constantly changing and evolving; so too our response must evolve so that we can be as fully prepared as possible. In the event of a terrorist attack we want to act swiftly and effectively. Today, our emergency planning is one of our best weapons. It will prove crucial in responding well to such an event. We will not get a second chance; there will be no dress rehearsals.

The proposed legislation before us today is crucial to our emergency planning. It will make sure that the Australian Defence Force can be called upon to respond quickly to a threat to Australia’s domestic security. It will provide a clear legislative basis for the involvement of the ADF to assist our civil authorities, such as police, where currently there is a range of limitations. The current legislation presents many difficulties. It does not reflect our changing threat environment. There are too many processes to go through in order to coordinate an immediate response to a terrorist attack. These processes take too much time, time which could mean lives.

For one of the best examples we have as to how our current legislation works we need to go back to the 1978 Hilton bombings. On 13 February 1978 it took all day for the approval process to allow the ADF to assist New South Wales authorities. Deliberations went on for hours, as was required in the legislation’s call-out process. This process involved the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General, who each needed to be satisfied that a domestic violence incident was occurring or likely to occur. Afterwards, the Governor-General was also required to issue a written order. The harsh reality of our current climate is that we need to be able to call out the ADF much more quickly than this process allows.

In the Howard government sponsored Mercury 04 exercise, in my previous life as a senior sergeant with the Victorian Police counter-terrorism unit, my role was to advise senior officers on the call-out procedures for the ADF, along with other roles. I can inform the House that the current process is very convoluted, time consuming and complex, as you have the police, the ADF and state and federal governments checking and double-checking with teams of legal experts, trying to ensure all legal requirements have been met. In times of crisis you do not want to be debating: ‘Does this situation meet the call-out for the ADF? Who has authority to call out the ADF? Have all the forms been filled in correctly?’ What you want is the ADF on the ground directly responding to a terrorist attack. These laws were not helpful during the bombings at the Hilton Hotel in 1978. Today they would be just as restrictive, especially in the context of a rapidly developing terrorist attack, which requires an immediate, urgent response, not a drawn-out legal process.

This is a frightening scenario. We are dealing with terrorists who aim to cause mass civilian casualties. We are dealing with terrorists who may not confine their attacks to a single site. We are dealing with terrorists who do not care whether they die during an attack. In future they may use a range of deadly biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons, giving them the capability of inflicting mass casualties. The most worrying aspect of all of this is that there is likely to be no warning.

To be prepared we need much more operational flexibility. Assisting civilian authorities quickly in the event of a terrorist attack requires that the government be given broader powers to make call-outs. It also requires the expansion of the legal powers of ADF personnel when they are undertaking operations to aid our state police. It is vital that we remember, though—and I wish to remind the House—that, despite these legislative changes, the ADF would still remain a last resort in domestic security operations. There is still a hierarchy of power in response to an incident. The ADF will only be called upon to respond to an event which proves unmanageable or overwhelming for civil authorities. All this legislation will do is to make the process of calling upon the ADF much quicker and more efficient.

Under the proposed amendments it is only the Prime Minister who would need to verbally consent to a call-out of the ADF. If the Prime Minister were not available then consent would come from two authorising ministers: the Minister for Defence, who is in the chamber tonight—and I congratulate him on his recent appointment—and the Attorney-General. The addition of a third tier is also before us for consideration in this legislation where the PM and one of the authorising ministers are not contactable. It allows for consent from a remaining authorising minister and either the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Treasurer. These legislative changes will prove imperative in overcoming the restrictions in the current outdated processes we have in place.

Currently, our national terrorism threat level stands at medium, as assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO. Given our current threat level it has been argued that this legislation is an overly extreme response to the threat of an attack that is currently neither imminent nor likely. But let me say, firstly, that this legislation is not concerned with the level of our terrorism threat today. This legislation is concerned with being fully prepared for tomorrow, next week, next month and in future years when the terrorist attack may be unpredictable. No person can promise me that a terrorist attack will not happen some time in the future on home soil. Therefore, I fully support the Prime Minister’s view that the Howard government’s number one priority is the protection of the Australian people.

Secondly, the threat we face today is unprecedented. These terrorist networks are inspired by an ideology which fundamentally opposes our values, and these terrorists are innovative. They look for new techniques to mount attacks, and we know that they have undertaken research into chemical, biological and radiological weapons. We just have to go back to April 2004 when terrorists in Jordan stockpiled 20 tonnes of chemicals—that is, enough to kill 100,000 people—but, luckily, authorities detected them. The only way we can truly fight them is by using a strategy which looks to the future, which tries to prevent attacks and which in the event of an attack ensures we get the outcomes that would be expected. With these amendments before us, we are ensuring that our legislative framework allows the optimal coordination response between police, government and the ADF.

I fully understand, appreciate and agree with the concerns Australians have in relation to the delicate balance we must strike between personal liberty and collective security. Personal liberty is one of the linchpins of our democratic way of life in this country and nobody who supports these amendments wants to change that. Indeed, in this fight against terrorism we are seeking to protect our personal liberties and those of all Australians. Members in this House would never want to see the day we require that this bill be enforced. That day would be a tragic and terrible day.

In closing, this is another step the Howard government is taking to ensure that not only are we best prepared to prevent a terrorist attack but in the worst-case scenario, if we have a terrorist attack on home soil, the ADF can respond quickly and effectively. I therefore strongly support this bill.

See this speech in context