Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 is very important and significant legislation because its purpose is to protect the Australian people from terrorists and returning foreign fighters who seek to harm us. Those returning foreign fighters have been radicalised online, recruited by Islamic State and their affiliates. They betrayed their country—they betrayed us—to fight in Iraq and Syria and now are seeking to return, and continue to struggle. They are returning to us with combat experience, hard hearts and a proven capacity for violence and bloodshed. We have Australians among us, and looking to return, who see themselves as part of a global insurgency against free peoples committed to liberal democracy, the rule of law, and values and institutions that uphold the dignity and sanctity of the individual.

These foreign fighters have betrayed our country and exchanged their place in our community for a seat at the table for violence, bloodshed and tyranny. They do not deserve—nor should they receive—an open door back into the safety and security of our Commonwealth. Therefore, the purpose of the temporary exclusion orders bill is to delay, control and risk-manage the return of foreign fighters and other nefarious characters into our Commonwealth. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have a number of operational tools at their disposal, and this bill strengthens their capacity to manage the threat posed by foreign fighters.

As chair of the PJCIS I led an inquiry into and reported on this bill in the 45th Parliament, back in April. We made 18 recommendations, including an additional one that the bill be passed. Our inquiry was thorough and our debate internal to the committee was robust, as it should be in a functioning democracy. The government has responded and accepted either fully, in part or in principle, as is the language used in the government's response, 16 of the recommendations. The government has noted two of the committee's recommendations.

Since this report was tabled, I have received further briefings from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, alongside my deputy chair, the member for Holt, and the intelligence we received was not encouraging, to be frank. It is true that the global coalition against Islamic State has prevailed militarily in Iraq and Syria. However, to proclaim victory is to call a false dawn. We have struck the shepherd but the sheep are scattering across the globe—and, sadly, many are Australians. We have a long fight ahead of us against Islamic State, which includes disruption, enforcement and counter-radicalisation. To buy us time, the temporary exclusions orders bill is the most effective way of allowing our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to manage the flow of foreign fighters back to Australia.

It has been made clear to us that there is an operational imperative to pass this bill. I am satisfied with the government's response. Therefore, I support this bill in its present form and will vote against Labor's amendments. I think the most significant recommendation was No. 7, the judicial review. During the inquiry, we had several submitters, including the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Law Council of Australia, make it very clear that judicial oversight was lacking from the bill. We have recommended that be included. The government has responded by accepting, in principle, recommendation No. 7. That is the news story that so far has been missed by much of our media.

The member for Isaacs spoke earlier and gave us 30 minutes of what I can only call Shakespearean obloquy. We had outrage, condemnation, self-justification and all manner of rhetorical tricks. The question for the member for Isaacs is: will you vote for this bill? He's asked coalition members if we will cross the floor to vote for the amendments. The answer to the member for Isaacs is: no, we will not vote with Labor for their amendments—out of principle, and because of the need for this bill to be passed in its present form. Moreover, we will not vote for him, he who fears his political reputation by voting with us. I suggest the member for Isaacs join us on the yes side when the bells ring later today.

See this speech in context