House debates

Thursday, 2 October 2014

Statements on Indulgence

National Security

11:09 am

Photo of Andrew LamingAndrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to add my voice to this very important expression of bipartisan support for the way that our security and Defence border protection officials are looking after the safety and security of our country. We have full faith in their work. I also acknowledge that obviously at the moment there are some unique international events that certainly do test our will as a freedom-loving democracy to be able to continue the work that we do overseas in developing economies, but also ensure that those of us here at home remain aware, not distressed or fearful, of these changes. As a strong, vibrant, multicultural, wealthy and successful Australia, we can brook these challenges and we can succeed. Before we go any further, I want to make it very clear that there are a large number of Australians both in uniform and not in uniform who are part of this effort. I know that this full parliament as well as all Australians thank them for their service and the work that they are doing.

But my message today is predominately to Australians who do not have a direct connection to these events. As I have remarked before, my electorate of Bowman was recently considered the least ethnically diverse metropolitan electorate in Australia. So I come to this debate potentially far removed from the immediacy of close connection to some of the recent events. I do not have senior multicultural leaders in my electorate with whom I can speak directly about some of these concerns, but I am very sympathetic to communities that are in this situation. As has been noted already in some unfortunate divarication in this debate into areas that are effectively distractions, I think it is very important to make it clear that we welcome people from every corner of this planet to become Australians. We are the most multicultural country in the world. We have done it successfully and we will continue to do so. That is actually our strength, not our weakness. So I want everyone in my electorate certainly to realise the impressive community and society that we have established and recognise that it will play a very important role in areas of the world where democracy is under threat.

To people who have doubts about that involvement and to individuals who have had some concerns about Australia's involvement dating back to 2000 and even prior in the Gulf War, I remember the words of Tony Blair: 'We do not engage ourselves in areas simply because we feel like doing it or because we can. We are in these parts of the world because as freedom-loving democracies we must be there.' We must be at that front line making sure that extremists and radicals have nowhere to hide, that they cannot embed themselves in major metropolitan areas, towns or cities in any country in the world. I am proud to say that there is not a country in the world where they can at the moment, but by doing nothing we simply risk that status quo changing.

In that fine balance between freedom and security here, we need to know that obviously the world is a very different place in parts of the Middle East. So our intention there is to put our shoulder to the wheel and to do our fair share. If requested by our coalition colleagues, and by that I mean international colleagues, I think it is appropriate that we consider that and make our own decisions through the National Security Committee and through cabinet. That is the right way to do it. We have modulated this response perfectly in the context that of course there are not yet exit plans because we do not even know the full scope of what we are engaging in. That is the 'known unknowns' element of this debate.

What we have profiled is the relatively small number of Australians who became involved, many of them before some of our reforms and our legislative propositions were known to them. I am certain there were many people who headed overseas for a combination of reasons, including family, clan and obligation—some seeking excitement and fascination, and some with way more malevolent intentions. Whoever they are the message is clear—your actions are not welcome in this country. They will not be forgotten and the sooner they leave those actions the better. They will be tracked down and prosecuted under these new laws. To that group of people, those few score people that are overseas currently engaged in either Iraq or Syria, that message is loud and clear from this government, and the bipartisan support from the opposition is welcomed.

For those that are supporting from Australia, it is now absolutely crystal clear that this must stop immediately, and that message really was one that this new legislation will articulate. Lastly, to people who have general sympathies: we are a nation of freedom of speech. I appreciate there are many people out there with anti-American sentiments and people who have particular sentiments about countries, cultures and religions. We live in a country where you can express those. We have a parliament where every person who takes a seat in this building is welcome to express them as well. Whatever our views are, whether we think it is bad timing or indelicate or little bit gauche, we can say what we think in a free country. What is absolutely clear is that there cannot be incitement to violence. That very, very clear line is now well understood by everyone.

My concern as a Queensland MP is that there has been a tendency—if there is any tendency at all—to cheap, cultural, political, religious shots and picking up email campaigns, and that is absolutely not constructive whatsoever. I am glad that the Prime Minister's statement makes it absolutely clear that we are all Australians, we are all equal and, if we share in those values, we should be able to stand together shoulder-to-shoulder, regardless of what we are wearing.

The recent debate this week was an opportunity for many of us to be able to say to people of all cultural backgrounds and to people who choose to wear garments that reflect some kind of conspicuous religious adherence that it is completely okay with us. Let's be absolutely clear about that. That is fine. Over and above all of those concerns are security issues to which we all adhere as citizens, and, as the Prime Minister's statement reflected, there has been a slight shift away in certain freedoms given the current security situation. Common-sense people understand that. I trust the Presiding Officers to make the right decision. I trust the security officials here in this building, as I do the AFP, Customs and Border Protection and all of the groups that do this work. We have to trust that they are modulating the response appropriately and then go about our normal day and our normal work unfettered and unconcerned.

If we accept this slight reduction in our freedoms, that will mean additional checks. There is no reason why someone should not identify themselves if they are entering a facility like Parliament House. That should be completely possible, regardless of what you are wearing. It is not just one garment that I am talking about here. I am talking about people wearing any form of headdress or anything that might obstruct someone's face.

Of course, if you are accessing publicly funded goods and services, we need to know who you are because there is a certain eligibility requirement and you need to be identified. As I pointed out, in the private sector there are legitimate areas. For example, in a court, in a law firm, in a health practice where you are prescribing medications or where you are picking up a parcel of value—in all of those situations, a private operator and transaction is completely within their rights to attempt to identify the person they are dealing with. It is a two-way arrangement. It does not allow refusal of service but certainly suspension of service until identification is carried out. Without putting too fine a point on it, there will be situations where a person will need to be identified by, for instance, a female officer. I think that is completely legitimate as well, but it may incur delays until a female officer is available. This is just part of the reasonable security response that we would accept, but it is also a reasonable expectation that someone can identify another person.

We need to move on from that debate. Quite realistically, we should be able to reach out to fellow Australians who have taken the oath of citizenship and say, 'You are completely equal as Australians. We don't really care what you put on as clothing in the morning. You're welcome to wear it through the day because that is your cultural or your religious preference.' Those people are welcome.

My cautionary note—and this is really the main reason that I wanted to speak today—is: if we are going to keep peace-loving, moderate Australians of all cultural backgrounds on side here, we have to make it absolutely clear that they are not our target. As Paul Sheehan said, there is one per cent of one per cent that is an issue in this debate. This is an issue of law and order and criminality. Most of it stems not from any particular book of faith but from young, disengaged, dispossessed, poorly educated people looking for an outlet. That is why we must keep our focus on our commitment to make sure that people have a chance in this great country. When you take opportunity away, that is where this all starts. So let's not mix this up with religion. It is about a lack of opportunity. It is about despondent, intrafamilial, intergenerational unemployment and not giving people a chance and a start. If there is one area we can focus on, it is the area of high youth unemployment that coincides with where some of the events we have seen in the last weeks occurred. They are the people who need to realise that a free, peace-loving, prosperous Australia is one in which they can share.

Comments

No comments