House debates

Thursday, 18 March 2010

Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010

Second Reading

11:23 am

Photo of Greg HuntGreg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010 reminds us of the very simple proposition: who will watch the watchers? Who will guard the guarders? Who will protect against abuse of power by the protectors?

This parliament makes laws to protect Australians but we must always make sure that those laws and the actions we take are subject to scrutiny and independent observation and do not put at risk the fundamental freedoms and liberties which are the very reason we exist as a parliament. We exist not to further the work of the government; we exist to give people the best chance to pursue the life of their choice in a country which is free and open and which tolerates dissent but which does not tolerate threats upon the life or liberty of others. That is the essence of what we believe in as a parliament and as a party and a political movement. It is a statement of where we should be going in this century.

The context for this debate is very simple. September 11 heralded a new phase in global terrorism. Global terrorism has been with us for a long period now. It started, in essence, with the hijackings of planes which we saw throughout the 1970s. But it has progressed and we now face the spectre of nuclear terrorism through the agency of the dirty bomb, which is something that our generation and coming generations will have to deal with in this place. It is my sincere hope that as the world reaches towards the year 2050 we will not have faced such an attack, but it is utterly foreseeable, it is forewarned and we must take steps to ensure that there is no prospect ever of nuclear terrorism in the form of the dirty bomb or a lesser-grade of nevertheless hideous terrorism. We should take all possible steps to ensure that these concerns do not come to pass.

It is a clear and present danger: it is tangible, it is real and it is desired by those who seek to cause havoc, whether it is out of a sense of nihilism, out of a sense of venal mendacity or out of political desire. There is clearly a destructive intention, there is the capacity to carry out that intent and there is the willingness to bring these things to pass. If September 11 could have been carried out in a larger way than that  in which it was done they would have wreaked that havoc. So let us be clear that whether it is al-Qaeda or an offshoot, whether it is another grouping, such as those who carried out the Oklahoma bombing, or whether it is those with just the pure political will or intent, the prospect of terrorism is a clear and present danger which will continue throughout the coming decade and beyond.

We certainly see that there are sects and sections within the Islamic world, such as extremist Wahhabism, which present a danger. Mainstream Islam is a great and beautiful religion, and it is a force for good in the world—I make that absolutely clear in my words. But there are those who will pervert the edges of that for political purposes, for personal advancement or for carrying forth individual grievances—as there are in Christianity or other religions. But the most clear and present danger, as we see at present in parts of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in the desire to take control of Indonesia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are some elements of extremism which are a violent force.

Against that background we need strong laws which allow us to deal with the world as it is now, and that means communications and dealing with and discovering those plans which are hatched in secrecy and carried out under the cover of darkness. I make no apologies—none—for supporting strong laws in terms of national security and intelligence gathering.

But if we have those laws we need laws such as this, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill, which was the child of the member for Kooyong, Petro Georgiou. It was similarly supported by Senators Troeth and Humphries and also the member for Pearce, Judi Moylan. They outlined the need for this bill. It was resisted by the government; it has now been adopted and under such circumstances we will offer bipartisan support. It is about ensuring that there is independent observation of the laws which we set down for Australia with regard to intelligence, security and counterterrorism activities. Those laws are needed but, similarly, this law in this place at this time is overdue. I commend it, I support it and I give great respect to the members for Kooyong and Pearce and to Senators Troeth and Humphries. I thank the government for having finally adopted that which they had previously proposed and brought before both this House and the Senate.

It is time for a national security legislation monitor who is genuinely independent, who reports to the parliament, who is not subject to executive control and who will call it as he or she sees it. That is the safeguard we need in Australia. It complements the safeguards we take against those of malicious intent. I endorse this legislation and I congratulate the member for Kooyong.

Comments

No comments