Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to continue the opposition's responsible support for the Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018. I was particularly interested in the very specific suggestion from the member for Canberra that this bill should actually be wider and take into consideration other critical infrastructure, apart from the four mentioned in the bill. I thought it was very wise of her, having concentrated so much on the effect of cybersecurity attacks in Australia and cybersecurity warfare generally, to mention the electoral systems as being critical infrastructure.

We have seen claims from many countries that their electoral systems have been interfered with various hostile non-democratic powers. I was recently in France and had the great pleasure of introducing Senator Pauline Hanson to a young Muslim member of the National Assembly who was moving responsible legislation to restrict the Russian Federation from interfering in the French elections in the future as they had done recently to try and influence the candidacy of Mr Macron. It was a sort of piquant moment to point out to someone who was 'so uncritical' of all Muslims that here was a young responsible member of the National Assembly doing her bit for the security of democracy in France.

Other countries have similar systems to that that is being legislated at the moment in relation to the ability to call out members of the defence forces in specific circumstances. There are countries in Europe which, regrettably for them, have to access the power of the military more often because they've had terrible terrorist attacks on their citizenry. Other countries that have similar legislation to this that I have been able to discover at short notice are Canada, Italy, Denmark and the United Kingdom. The United States has very longstanding laws against the US military which serves overseas being called out onto US streets. But, of course, the US has the National Guard, which can be, and indeed has been, deployed in terrorist incidents. That's the American way of dealing with their quaint constitution and the burgeoning issue of terrorist attacks in the United States.

I also took very seriously the comments of the members for Lingiari and Herbert—which, in most part, answer the member for Melbourne's criticisms—that there are very specific rules that govern the military's behaviour if they are called out in these circumstances. These are restrictions which democratic countries like Australia would support. The member for Canberra pointed out the context locally of this and other laws on counter-terrorism. They include the fact that there are 80 people currently being charged with terrorism and that the level of terrorist attacks in Australia is probable. These are all circumstances that we haven't brought about, that we don't like and that we wish never occurred but that responsible governments of all kinds have to face up to.

There's a further piece of context to this particular amendment that's quite regrettable. That is the report of the coroner and the widespread media reporting of the New South Wales reaction to the Lindt cafe siege. Frankly, I would think that most Australians would have much preferred the highly professional Australian military to have handled those circumstances. Can you imagine circumstances in which the commander of the terrorist situation went home to sleep? Can you believe that stun grenades were thrown by the police forces against closed doors? Can you believe that there were no operational telephone lines operating between the commanders and the people at the coalface? Can you believe that there was failure to have modern breach equipment to get into the cafe to save all of the poor Australians who were there, including the two people who were killed, who were just doing their normal business and should not have been victims of that person who should have been arrested and long been in jail?

Given the member for Melbourne's comments, this has further context. The member for Melbourne represents the Greens political party, which has voted, as far as I can work out, against every proposal in this place and in the Senate to protect the safety of Australians against the threat of terrorism and Jihadists in and out of Australia. Currently, we have the problem of the return of former foreign fighters, and that's determined by the rule of law, and a consideration, of course, is given to children who are returning from a declared war zone. We also have a non-partisan concern, or maybe it's a bipartisan concern, about the few Australians, probably about a hundred, who are seeking to leave Australia to fight in Iraq or Syria. They're being denied a passport, I think with support of both sides of parliament, and, therefore, denied the right to travel to those countries. We've got to be tough on these combatants seeking to return, to protect the safety of all Australians, which should be our No. 1 priority.

As I said before, the Greens party, as with their opposition to this legislation, has fought every attempt in this parliament over the years that I have been here to face up to these responsibilities. As I said again, we did not seek these circumstances. Australia or Australians are the potential victims. We did not seek this increase in terrorist circumstances, but we as a responsible parliament must face up to it. Even before the Batman by-election, which the Labor Party thankfully won, you would have thought that the Greens political party would have been a bit more cautious and shown a bit more responsibility. No. Their leader, Senator Di Natale, insisted on the ABC's Q&A that foreign fighters and jihadists be allowed to return to Australia. The Greens party chief described these people as 'good people who've made mistakes'. They are not. They are the enemies of Australia and people who are a risk to ordinary citizens who want to go about their lives in peace and security. The most fundamental human right that all of us have is the right to safety and the sanctity of human life. If anyone, for some gratuitous overseas political reason or some ideology that goes back to the 6th century, says that they have the right to kill Australians, I say this parliament has to do everything possible to make sure that we address those new circumstances and defend our fellow Australians.

I want to make this point particularly clear to my electorate. During every weekend hundreds of volunteers in my electorate work to protect the safety and security of local institutions. These people are selfless. They work very closely with the Victorian police and they've been highly successful—I won't go into details—in preventing even attacks in Melbourne. We've seen recently—there is a court case ongoing at the moment—that three people planned a terrorist attack on Flinders Street station and St Paul's Cathedral in Christmas 2016. These threats are ongoing, extant, and very, very local as far as we're concerned. It should be crystal clear to the voters of Melbourne Ports, which will be renamed Macnamara, that there is a key difference between the Labor Party and the Greens political party at the next election. One is a responsible party that has, of course, a huge range of views on domestic matters that are different from those of the government but is responsible and wants to protect their circumstances, their safety and their lives. Unfortunately, we must address, and we do address with this amendment bill, circumstances that Australia and Australians didn't generate. We need this Defence Force legislation for the reasons that they have such legislation in so many countries overseas, because of changed circumstances.

In my electorate, if you want to vote for a responsible political party at the next election, it's absolutely clear that anyone who does not support this or other antiterrorist legislation cannot be voted for without it saying that the lives of people whom they live amongst are unimportant and only the political ideologies of the Greens political party—

See this speech in context