Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Arts) Share this | Hansard source

Since I have been in this parliament, like many other people, I have taken the view that we should treat intelligence matters in a bipartisan way. We all acknowledge that the security services must be allowed to do their work, subject of course to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, without being made the subject of partisan bickering. Most parliamentarians feel that the security of the Australian people is more important than politics. During the years of the Howard government, we on this side gave steadfast support to the government's changes to our security laws in the wake of the 9-11 attacks and the Bali bombings. We did this despite considerable criticism of the government from the media and academia, who thought we should have opposed those measures. But we took the responsible view and supported them in the national interest.

In contrast today we have heard the intellectually lamentable performance from the member for Cook who conflated the increase in boat arrivals with national security. Of course there is not one person convicted of a major terrorist crime who has arrived in Australia by boat. As part of the bipartisan concern that I think we should evince on security matters, senior members of the opposition are given briefings by the security agencies so that they are fully informed of developments. That privilege afforded to us when we were in opposition is now afforded to the current opposition. The confidentiality of those briefings has always been respected.

A significant breach of this convention has taken place in recent days. Comments of the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, appear to reveal information he was given as part of a briefing from ASIO. I am not going to compound that breach by repeating what he said, or by commenting on it. I respect the senator for Queensland, the would-be Attorney-General, a person who would be in charge of our national security, but he ought to know better. In a further breach of the tradition of bipartisanship in national security matters, the opposition in question time yesterday and again today have tried to claim that funding to our national security agencies has been cut under this government. It is easy for an opposition to make these allegations, as it was easy for the member for Stirling to talk about the man who came here from Egypt, based on press cuttings. Does he think the government knows nothing else? Of course they do. But the government cannot respond because it cannot reveal confidential information.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Brandis should have spoken to the honourable member for Berowra, a former Attorney-General and a man for whom I have a great of respect on security issues despite our other party differences, before they embarked on this reckless course these last two days. Moreover, as the chair of the intelligence committee, the honourable member for Holt said in answer to the own-goal question from the Manager of Opposition Business today, 'The Leader of the Opposition is as unqualified on national security matters as the former member for Werriwa, Mark Latham.'

The Leader of the Opposition's spurious campaign, the essence of it, can be very easily dealt with, and the Prime Minister dealt with it very effectively yesterday when she explained there had been no cuts to our security services. Since this government came to office, there has in fact been an increase of $18 billion in national security funding. In this budget ASIO gets an increase of $32 million. Since 2007, ASIO's funding has risen by 27 per cent and ASIO's staffing has risen from 1,349 to 1,778, a 32 per cent increase.

I think all members of this House regard this expenditure on security as justified. Since the murder by Jamaah Islamiya of 88 of our fellow Australians in Bali, there have been no successful attacks on mainland Australia. That is to the great credit of the security services and to the non-partisan support for them and their activities by both sides of politics. So the hysteria about national security and alleged decreases in the budget and their effects by the members for Stirling and Cook have no real basis in fact. We in this country are very lucky that there have been no killings of Australians on mainland Australia.

Until my elevation to parliamentary secretary, I was a member of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, chaired by the honourable member for Holt. In the years I served on that committee I never heard our able national security agencies say they were unable to fulfil their tasks because of a lack of resources.

Without revealing any of the confidential information that was given to the committee when I was a member of it, I can say that the efficiency of our intelligence services has not been affected by funding considerations. Of course, no government agency can expect a blank cheque in the context of any budget. But this government, like previous governments, has given a very high priority to the safety and security of the Australian people and has funded our agencies accordingly.

In recent weeks we have seen shocking confirmation of the security challenges facing Western democracies, with a spread of Islamist terrorism: in Boston with the killing of innocent bystanders at the end of the marathon and also a police officer; the cold-blooded murder of a British soldier in the streets of London; and a similar event in France. Fortunately, we have seen no such attacks in Australia. It is not a matter of luck; it is a matter of the highly competent and highly effective response by our national security agencies, funded by this government and previous governments.

Since 2003, there have been 35 prosecutions of terrorist related charges, resulting in 26 convictions. However, it is proper to note that some of those convictions are still subject to appeal. Each of those convictions represented a real threat to our national security, not some of the nonsense that was talked about by the member for Stirling, and they were thwarted by our security services. These security services would not have been able to do that unless they were properly funded, staffed and resourced and, indeed, unless they had people who were there with the spirit of Australia to protect their fellow Australians.

This line of attack from the Leader of the Opposition, in my view, is very hollow when we know that he and his shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for North Sydney, are publicly committed to cutting $70 billion from government spending. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to give a commitment that security agencies will be exempt from Public Service cuts here in Canberra, I would be pleased.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously on national security, then he will come into this House and direct the honourable member for Wentworth that he will not allow the Chinese telecom Huawei permission, against the explicit advice of the security services—the security services they have been lauding and talking about so effusively over the last few days—to bid for the NBN. The security services of Australia have advised the Australian government and the Australian government has followed their advice that Huawei will not be allowed to bid for the NBN. That is not supported by the opposition spokesman on communications.

If the Leader of the Opposition is really serious about national security and concerned about these kinds of issues, I call on him to follow the advice of the security services and to come into this House and explicitly tell the Australian people that he will follow their advice and not that of the spokesman on communications.

The Leader of the Opposition has also committed himself to sacking 20,000 public servants. Has he given an undertaking that these cuts will not affect the security services? Again, unless he is prepared not to cut ASIO staff, his comments over the last few days on national security will be seen as humbug, because that is what they really are. You cannot cut the security services and promise that you will do that, not offer them any exemptions, and then come into this place and go around the country railing about the effects on national security.

All in all, this has been a sad day for those of us who really care about national security and who have tried to take a bipartisan line on these issues. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Attorney-General play some of the cheapest, most dishonest kinds of politics with these matters. I think it is a disgrace and I think it is harmful to our real national security. I hope that the opposition will pull back from this reckless and irresponsible course and take the counsel of people such as the member for Berowra.

See this speech in context