House debates

Monday, 23 November 2009

Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill 2009

Second Reading

7:34 pm

Photo of Tony AbbottTony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the bill be read a second time.

I do appreciate the chance to speak again on this Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill 2009. This is a very important bill, because it is about trying to assist the civilian casualties of the war on terror. The war on terror has been a bipartisan exercise in this parliament. It was begun, if you like, by the Howard government in conjunction with our allies; it was, in most respects, enthusiastically supported by the then opposition; and the Rudd government is certainly participating vigorously in the war on terror in Afghanistan and elsewhere—and it is right that the Rudd government should do so.

But this is not just something that affects Australian military personnel. We have seen on several major occasions now how the war on terror has touched ordinary Australian citizens who have found themselves in the line of fire. In the World Trade Centre on September 11 there were Australian victims; tragically, in Bali in 2002 and again in 2005 there were Australian victims; and in London, and twice in Jakarta, there were Australian victims. All up, more than 300 Australians have been killed or seriously injured as a result of Australia’s participation in the war on terror.

If we take the second Bali bombing: the bombers went to that beachside restaurant in Bali precisely because they knew there would be Australians there. Australians were directly targeted in that instance precisely because they were Australian. In other instances, of course, it was because they were citizens of the West generally, but in Bali in particular, Australians were precisely targeted because of their Australian citizenship.

Through the bill we are debating I am proposing a national scheme, analogous to the state victims of crime schemes, for the innocent Australian victims and the innocent Australian civilian casualties of the war on terror. I am not proposing a massively costly scheme. If all of those 300 plus people or next of kin got the maximum amount I envisage of $75,000, it would cost the Commonwealth government about $30 million at the most.

I read in the Newcastle Herald today that it was not the federal government’s job to provide assistance or compensation. If it is not the federal government’s job, it is no-one’s job. If there is any responsibility of the federal government it is surely to protect and look after Australians who get into trouble abroad, particularly if those Australians are being targeted, at least in part, because of our participation in the war on terror. I also read in the Newcastle Herald this morning something about the government looking at compensating all people who get hurt. That is a nice thought but, as Paul Anicich, one of the victims of the 2005 Bali bombings, said, he first heard this from Gough Whitlam back in 1973. These people deserve better than to have to wait 20 or 30 years for a general scheme and, frankly, they are in a different position to people who just happen to get injured in the ordinary course of life.

I want to thank Paul Anicich and Tony Purkiss, two of the Newcastle survivors of the 2005 Bali bombings, for coming to the parliament today. I did not have the privilege of meeting Paul on that dreadful aftermath day, but I have got to know him quite well since. He is a great man. He in particular, along with everyone else, deserves to be acknowledged and assisted. And Tony Purkiss—what an inspiration! He was blinded by that attack. He is still engaged in ocean racing. Yes, great spirit is shown by these people, but they also deserve acknowledgement and recognition.

Finally, I do want to thank the Prime Minister for his gracious treatment of my question in the parliament. I am pleased that the government is looking at the matter. Something has to be done. It does not have to be this bill, but it has to be something. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments