Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am very pleased and proud to rise in this House to support this piece of legislation which was introduced into the previous parliament but unfortunately lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. I have reintroduced it into the parliament because I believe this is an important gap in our provision for people who suffer simply because they are Australian. As I have already indicated to the House in the first reading speech, this bill is designed to support Australian victims of overseas terrorist acts. These are people who suffer because they have been deliberately targeted by terrorist groups by virtue of being Australians or of being Westerners. What I am attempting with this piece of legislation is to ensure that support exists for them which is analogous to the support which has long been available to the victims of ordinary crime under the state and territory victims of crime schemes. What I am proposing is not radical, it is not particularly expensive, it is not novel, it is not, in the Sir Humphrey Appleby sense, courageous; it is simply extending to the victims of international terrorism the same kind of support that would be extended to the victims of domestic crime by the states and territories. It is a very modest but important measure to fill a significant gap in the support that our country gives to people who have suffered through no fault of their own.

In no way do I wish to score political points here. In no way do I wish to gain political kudos. I simply wish our parliament, our government and our country to accord to Australians who have suffered through terrorist acts this additional measure of recognition. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to see this measure, or a measure like it, or an improved measure taken up by the government and adopted as a government measure. I would be thrilled if the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister were to so act.

I want to pay tribute to the Attorney-General and also to the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, for the sympathetic consideration that they have given to my bill. My office was briefed by officers of the Attorney-General’s Department on the government’s general issues. One of the questions that were raised was about the potential problem, as they saw it, of Australian citizens overseas—in, for instance, Middle Eastern countries—who are caught up in terrorist incidents being eligible for this kind of assistance and blowing out the budget. I think there is a very straightforward way around this. The scheme that I am proposing is to be set up by regulation made by the minister and, if there is genuine concern on the government’s part about this, there is a very easy way around it—the scheme would only apply to people who are Australian domiciled as well as Australian citizens. That way, Australian citizens who are not living here in Australia and are caught up in terrorist incidents would not be covered. So there is an easy way under the bill as submitted to the parliament, being debated tonight, to address the issue that was raised by officers of the Attorney-General’s Department.

I do not wish to detain the House long, given that I had my 10 minutes in introducing the bill and given that I have spoken to it before in this chamber and in the Main Committee. I do believe that it is important to give others the opportunity to speak, should they wish to speak, in the time allocated to this debate. I simply wish to reiterate that there are ways within the bill as drafted to address all of the various problems that have been put to me by people who I have been promoting this bill to. There are ways of handling them. As I said, nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to see this bill adopted by the government. In that way, the whole of the parliament, and the government in particular, could take the credit for addressing the serious problem in our current levels of assistance for people who are hurt simply because they are Australian by people who have a hatred for our way of life.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010. This is not a well-drafted piece of legislation. With words like ‘scheme’, ‘plan’, ‘framework’ and ‘guidelines’ it is vague and esoteric. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to develop a scheme in relation to this matter, he should particularise in great specificity what he actually proposes. Too much is left up to regulation and to ministerial discretion. Even section 10 of the bill does not specify clearly what he wants. It is not well-drafted and, if he wants to be clear about it, he should do so.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have read it; that is why I am making comment in relation to it.

This is an important issue, and I do not believe the Leader of the Opposition when he says he does not want to play politics. Everything that he has said in relation to this matter, in my respectful submission, is about politics. This is an important issue and we take it very seriously. I think the protection of our citizens at home and abroad is simply the highest priority any government can have. We have lost Australians in acts of terrorism in the last 10 years or so. We lost Australians in New York in 9-11, for instance, and since that time we have stood with our American friends and allies in the fight against terrorism. It does not matter which side of politics has been on the Treasury benches; we have fought against terrorism, against those people who would destroy our way of life and who attack our citizens abroad and at home. That is simply what governments of any persuasion ought to do.

Many people have suffered terrible trauma, injury, illness, psychiatric problems and psychological difficulties due to acts of terrorism. We need to take steps to assist them. Since 9-11 more than 100 Australians have lost their lives in terrorist attacks, from Mumbai to Bali to Jakarta. This is a very serious issue. Helping those people and their families recover is simply impossible, but we can provide ex gratia assistance for health and psychiatric help. We can provide the Australian government disaster recovery payment. We can provide all kinds of short-term and long-term assistance. We can provide consular assistance and assistance in relation to counselling.

Of course we want to keep Australians safe from terrorism. We work hard at home and abroad with our partners to bring down terrorist networks. We have seen Australian security forces involved overseas, including the SAS in Afghanistan and other places struggling against Islamic fundamentalism; and the Australian Federal Police in Indonesia, liaising with other security organisations in the Asia-Pacific area. Where terrorists strike, the federal government must be there to help. National security is a top priority and there are a number of ways we help people.

These mechanisms include the ex gratia payments I referred to, healthcare assistance schemes and the Australian government disaster recovery payment, which some people in my electorate have recently received as a result of the floods in South-East Queensland. The Australian disaster recovery payment provides immediate short-term financial assistance to Australians adversely affected by a major disaster. In the past, governments have assisted victims of incidents overseas—such as in the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India—through healthcare assistance schemes. Those schemes assist with a range of costs for health care delivered in Australia, including hospital costs, pharmaceutical costs and counselling costs. We cannot do enough for those poor people who have suffered so much. The government may also, depending on the circumstances of the case, provide financial assistance through the AGDRP. We have provided ex gratia assistance to the victims of terrorist attacks overseas including the events in Bali in 2002 and 2005, London in 2005, Mumbai in 2008 and Jakarta in 2009.

These ex gratia packages have included financial assistance for family support, funeral and bereavement costs, travel costs and recognition of forgone wages resulting from the terrorist act. I think what we need is a whole-of-government approach. One-off things like the Leader of the Opposition is proposing is in my view an attempt to play politics. We need to undertake a comprehensive package to ensure Australians caught up in a terrorist attack overseas get all the help they need. That comprehensive package needs to provide not only assistance to families but also to extended loved ones.

I mentioned before consular assistance. People have made reference to the fact that Australian embassy staff  have provided tremendous help, friendship, fellowship, counselling and guidance. People also need support from health professionals—doctors, nurses and allied health professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists. Practical assistance with funeral arrangements are always difficult. Anyone who has had a friend or even a friend of a friend who has died overseas knows how difficult it can be in those circumstances when you are out of your depth and out of your country.

The Attorney-General has made it clear to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Paterson that a whole-of-government approach on this package is important and will be considered shortly. Consultations have already commenced with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Officers from the Attorney-General’s Department have worked closely with the Department of Health and Ageing and the Department of Human Services to provide practical ways to provide support for victims of overseas terrorism. On 31 January 2011 the Attorney-General wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Attorney-General and the member for Paterson in relation to work done by the federal Labor government with respect to the provision of assistance to Australians affected by terrorist incidents overseas. We recognise there are a genuine concerns in relation to these matters and that all members of this House should be concerned to help fellow Australians who have suffered terribly in these circumstances. As such, on 21 February 2011 the federal Labor government provided the opposition with a comprehensive briefing on these issues. We would welcome the constructive and positive engagement of the opposition, should they so wish, on this issue if they want to engage in a comprehensive strategy rather than the one-off thing they are proposing now. The federal government would explore all options in relation to this matter in terms of assistance. Our door is always open if they wish to be constructive.

To summarise, we have provided and will continue to provide targeted assistance to Australian victims of terrorism through financial, counselling, consular and medical assistance. There are a range of mechanisms in place. We remain committed to undertaking a whole-of-government approach on this. We want to consider everything—the costs involved, the relevant policy considerations and the logistics. It is my submission that the bill as it is currently drafted is vague, esoteric and leaves too much to ministerial discretion. As the government has outlined in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Paterson—who is in the chamber now—and the shadow Attorney-General, we are looking to a whole-of-government approach. Should the opposition wish not to play politics on this issue but to work constructively with us in a bipartisan way we will do everything we can to make sure they are in the loop and work cooperatively to get a response so that victims of terrorism overseas and their families can be supported. This is what the Australian public would expect of us, what the Australian public would demand of us and what they would expect of the opposition, rather than playing politics.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010. This bill is about human compassion. This bill is about providing support to our fellow Australians, who, through no fault of their own—only through circumstances of the location they were in at the time—have suffered at the hands of merciless terrorists, who hate us for who we are and what we are. I have never heard a speech like the one just given by the member for Blair—lacking any ounce of human compassion for his fellow Australians.

On 24 November 2009, the Prime Minister gave a commitment in this House that he would push to have this incorporated as part of a national disability scheme. In fact, on that day in the parliament Prime Minister Rudd berated me for questioning the integrity of that scheme and how it would apply to people that have been affected by terrorism—acts of terrorism such as the twin towers of September 11; the 12 October 2002 Bali bombings in which 88 Australians were killed; the London bombings in 2005, where one of my constituents, Louise Barry, hid in the underground in London and then on the No. 30 bus; and the October 2005 Bali bombings at Jimbaran Beach, where four Australians were killed, including three from the Hunter—Jennifer Williamson and Colin and Fiona Zwolinski.

This bill is about having a heart. We are asking for our fellow Australians nothing more than what they would get if indeed they were the victims of crime in any of the states here in Australia. Crime in Australia is a risk which is managed. But people travelling overseas do not go over there with the understanding that they are going to be attacked by terrorists. I say to this government that you need to be compassionate and you need to be supportive. In fact, the cost of this measure would be less than the government debt generated during the time of the debate on this bill. The amount of money that the government is borrowing while this debate ensues is more than the measures would require annually. These victims do not ask for much. It is true that we have provided support through Centrelink and we have provided emergency evacuations, but they need to get on with their lives. They need to know that the government is behind them and providing a level of financial support.

One of the victims of the Bali bombing is Paul Anicich. I first met Paul Anicich 16 years ago when he was one of the leading lights of the legal fraternity in Australia. He went on a reunion with some family friends and school friends to Bali. They went out to watch the sunset and then disaster struck. If it were not for people like Adam Frost, who is from the Hunter, who decided not to go down to watch the sunset that night—and, I have to say, the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, who played a key and instrumental role in providing support services and making sure evacuations and medical treatments were delivered to these people—who knows what the situation of those who survived the bombing blasts would be. This money can make a difference. It will allow people to get on with their lives. An email from Paul sent to me today reads:

I never thought … my life would include involvement in such an act or that I would, for myself, my wife and others be addressing matters such as this. My working and income producing life has been ended by the stroke I suffered during the bombings. While I apply myself in a manner of which I never thought myself capable to physical strength, the brain has its own ‘timetable’ I’m told. I’ve had quite a few admissions to John Hunter with continuing symptoms from what happened. I appreciate the support given by both Governments in respect of the cost of medical treatments and further appreciate the prospect of compensation in a Country which has always demonstrated its willingness to look after its people.

This financial support is not just to help those who have been affected. In a time when we have increasing acts of terrorism across the globe it is to provide for those who are yet to be affected. Whether it is providing support to those who were orphaned, Isaac and Ben Zwolinski, when their mother and father, Fiona and Colin, were killed or whether it is providing support to Bruce Williamson, who was affected, or indeed his children, Adam, Duncan and Megan—they need our support. Another person who I knew quite well is Tony Purkiss. His wife, Mary-Anne, was also severely affected. Tony is now blind and cannot work. He is without an income. He was a man who was doing a tremendous job down in Lake Macquarie at the yacht club.

What I say to this government is: have compassion. It was 15 months ago that you determined you would actually do something. In 15 months we have seen no action. All we have heard is rhetoric. We have had some meaningful discussions with the Attorney-General. I have had private meetings with the Attorney-General and I just ask of him to do what he can in this relatively small cost to the government bottom line to help fellow Australians. They are indeed fellow Australians.

I know this bill is going to be supported by the next speaker, Sharon Grierson, because in an email to Paul and Peni on 9 November 2009 she said:

It is good that Tony Abbott is raising this private members bill in the next session. It has my complete support and I will continue to lobby my colleagues on this matter.

She goes on to say:

Only Tony speaks on the Bill, unless it comes back a second time. If that does happen then I will speak in support.

There is the opportunity for the member for Newcastle tonight. She also says:

I agree with you that innocent victims of crimes of terrorism committed against the country and its government should be extended special compensation and consideration.

The local experiences demonstrate this need very clearly. Perhaps a special fund could be set up and be self-generating over time. I will look at Tony’s proposal.

Today is the day of action. You see there is not much point in putting the rhetoric out there; the rubber actually needs to hit the road. The money needs to flow. The support needs to be provided. If we do not do that, what does it say? Are we going to go another 15 months or another 15 years before we see any action?

People go overseas mostly on holidays with the intention of having a good time, not being involved in a disastrous situation. Through no fault of their own they are affected. The Leader of the Opposition has said tonight that one of the concerns that has been raised is the number of people who are Australian citizens who are resident overseas. This bill could be limited to those who are domiciled in Australia. So you must be domiciled in Australia and if you are affected by an act of terrorism then you are able to access this support.

For those that have been killed you could say that it is relatively easy. They do not need the financial support, but their families do. I have met these people. I know them, I have spoken to them and I understand the considerable pain and anguish that they go through. I have seen successful careers ended. I have seen families torn apart and I think that this money should be no different to what would be provided if indeed this bomb had gone off in Australia. If this bomb had gone off in Australia there would not be an issue. Straightaway they would have access to the victims of crime compensation in Australia. Because it happens to Australian citizens in an offshore land, as I said, through no fault of their own, they are denied any level of support.

Right from the beginning the speech by the member for Blair talked about the politics of this. There are no politics; this is about compassion. This is about supporting Australians. There was a scheme that was set up after the initial Bali bombing to provide support services, but more needs to be done. This, if you averaged it out at around 30 victims per year, which is what we have seen over the past decade, would cost the government about $2.25 million—let us say $3 million—per annum.

As I said, the government at the moment is borrowing about $100 million a day. In the length of time taken for this debate the government will have raised more than was required just to fund its debt. I implore all members—whether it is the Independents or members opposite—to think about those fellow Australians, many of whom are known to people in this place—not just to the Leader of the Opposition and me but to many. I acknowledge that the member for Newcastle was there and very supportive of those in Newcastle who were affected at the time. Now it is time for the rubber to hit the road, to end the rhetoric and to start to see action. I commend this bill to the House.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the private members’ bill, the Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010. As was the case when this bill was last presented, in late 2009, the government cannot support it in its current form and neither can I. Compensation for victims of overseas terrorist attacks is a serious issue deserving of careful and detailed consideration. But, in deciding whether to support this bill, there is a simple question before all members: does this bill advance or improve the situation of victims of terrorist acts? The simple answer is that, in its current form, this is not guaranteed.

But before I set out in detail the ground on which the government and I intend to oppose this bill, I wish to underscore the importance of this debate for the people of Newcastle. I too acknowledge my constituent Paul Anicich and the work he has done to pursue this issue. I applaud his motivation and sincere concern for his fellow victims.

The member for Paterson mentioned an email exchange. I would like to clarify that at the time I was of the belief that the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, was putting up a private member’s motion, something that everyone could have supported and could then have been taken from there. But I was wrong at the time; it was a private member’s bill.

The Bali bombings of October 2005 carry particular significance for my electorate. Three Novocastrians—Colin Zwolinski, Fiona Zwolinski and Jennifer Williamson—tragically lost their lives. Other Novocastrians also suffered terrible injuries as a result of that malicious and unprovoked attack and many more were traumatised by the events. I have put on the record before, and will do so again, the gratitude I hold on behalf of the people of Newcastle to the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, for his assistance to victims of the 2005 terrorist attacks in Bali from my electorate. In particular, Mr Abbott worked closely with Novocastrian Dr Adam Frost, who was also in Bali that night, to secure the most appropriate medical assistance and arrange rapid evacuation to other medical facilities or back to Australia. Dr Frost was recognised in 2007 when he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for ‘service to the community’ for his actions providing medical aid to victims on that most terrible of nights. My constituents and I remain deeply grateful for both these gentlemen’s actions on that night, so it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge their efforts.

There will be a number of points of policy, though, on which members from both sides of the House will disagree today. But one principle that I believe unites all members is our common concern to provide whatever support is available and appropriate to Australian victims of terrorist attacks. Despite this common concern, however, the government cannot support this bill in its present form, and that is because this bill will do little to nothing to support the Australian victims of overseas terrorist attacks. It is disturbingly light on details and leaves crucial questions unanswered. It fails to set out by what mechanism, by what criteria and in what form compensation should be paid. Will it cover funeral costs? Will it cover the cost of counselling for those psychologically scarred by terrorist attacks? Will it cover the cost of an individual or family evacuation back to Australia? Will it compensate their loss of income? These are vital questions that deserve careful consideration. This bill, however, is silent on all those issues. Indeed, the actual concrete measures to be put in place under this bill are few and far between.

Clauses 5(1) and (2) of the bill call on the Attorney-General to ‘determine guidelines’ on eligibility requirements for the ‘disbursement of financial assistance’, yet there is no reference to what the content of these guidelines should be, nor how they will be implemented. Clause 10(b) of the bill provides that no compensation payout should exceed $75,000. And clause 11(c) also provides that ‘procedures and practices’ established under the bill should be ‘broadly commensurate with the procedures and practices established under state victims of crime compensation cases’, which, of course, vary from state to state. And that is the sum total of substance in this bill. Put frankly, this bill in its current form is plainly untenable and unworkable. No responsible government could support a bill that is so devoid of detail, short on content and leaves such important questions unaddressed. But, most importantly of all, this bill would not improve the situation of victims of terrorism one little bit.

The more cynical would be entitled to ask why the Leader of the Opposition has elected to move this motion now, rather than while he occupied a position in cabinet, up until 2007 when the terrorist attacks occurred. They might also ask: if a scheme along the lines proposed by Mr Abbott is good enough today, why wasn’t it good enough in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007 when he had the resources of government to frame legislation? But I make no comment on the motives of the Leader of the Opposition. I accept his genuine concern but not his drafting attempt at this legislation.

Federal governments of both persuasions, Labor and coalition, have always provided generous support to past victims of terrorism, as they should. The federal government has provided ex gratia payments to a number of victims of recent attacks which provided financial assistance for family support, funeral and bereavement costs and travel costs and recognised forgone wages resulting from the terrorist act.

When this issue was last debated, in 2009, then Prime Minister Rudd urged any Australian victims of terrorism to bring forward any requests for further assistance they required. I then wrote to my affected constituents urging them to take up the offer. Two of my constituents chose to do that directly through me and we sought various forms of assistance from the federal government. Following that intervention, all their concerns were considered and some resolved to both parties’ satisfaction.

I reiterate this offer to my constituents and encourage any Australian victims of terrorist attacks to raise with their elected member, and in the case of my constituents to raise with me, any further assistance they require. What is more, as Mr Abbott and those on the opposite benches know full well, the government is already moving ahead with the long and difficult work of putting together a comprehensive and workable scheme for victims of terrorism. The federal Labor government is determined to ensure that arrangements for supporting victims of terrorism are more effective than those in place under previous governments, including the Howard government.

What the victims from my electorate deserve is a single, comprehensive and properly considered package of support, one that would ensure they receive all the help they need and deserve. The federal Labor government is determined to deliver just that—not just a well-intentioned thought bubble, like this private member’s bill before us today, but a workable package to support those whose lives have been scarred permanently by terrorism. As the opposition knows full well, the Attorney-General is currently doing those hard yards to pull together such a package, which we anticipate will bring together consular support, assistance with funeral arrangements, support from health professionals and financial assistance for other needs. Indeed, the release today of the Productivity Commission’s report on disability care and support also provides a number of important pointers to what the shape of any single and comprehensive compensation scheme should look like and includes a section covering catastrophic events. The opposition’s support for these efforts would be very much welcomed.

In introducing this bill, the Leader of the Opposition rightly noted that victims of terrorism need more than just mere concern. I would again applaud both governments for the direct and ongoing support they have given to every victim of terrorism, which members tonight have mentioned. No member of the House could disagree with this. But victims also need more than just the tokenistic framework offered in this bill. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition say he has had discussions with the Attorney-General. It has always been my view that a private member’s motion which would have had absolute bipartisan support could have been the initial stepping stone for developing legislation which would also have had bipartisan support.

Our affected constituents deserve a very well thought through and comprehensive compensation package that will provide them with relevant material support in their hours of greatest need. It is my intention to continue to make sure the federal government will deliver this. Unfortunately, the private member’s bill we are debating tonight does not.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to support in the strongest terms the Leader of the Opposition’s motion for the second reading of the Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010. In doing so, I think it is important to note that this House has a common, shared concern for the victims of terrorism, and that is good to hear from members opposite. We have all seen the horrific impact of terrorism on our citizens abroad and the ongoing horrific effects on their lives and the lives of their families and others around them. I do find it odd, however, that the government, while having a concerned demeanour and sharing our concern for the victims, does not have a commitment to action.

That is why the Leader of the Opposition’s bill is before us today. We have a commitment to action, to seeing something actually done for the victims of terrorism. Considering that we live now in a world that is so dangerous, where the potential for further terrorist and other acts, both internationally and domestically, is only increasing—particularly when you look at what is happening in the Middle East—and there is a real prospect that Australia citizens will be the subject of terrorist acts in the very near future, it is an appropriate juncture for us to act, to move, to say, ‘We do need to look at ways of compensating the victims of terrorism.’

Over 300 Australians have lost their lives in the past decade, and government arrangements have been unsatisfactory in those cases. I think we can all acknowledge that. Our support is limited to Centrelink, medical expenses, some ex gratia assistance—not what the government is talking about here. The lack of a comprehensive method of delivering real and tangible support to the victims is unsatisfactory. We would all acknowledge that.

The government members’ arguments tonight have been very odd, and I do not think they need to be so political. Whether they are thinking about a whole-of-government approach or waiting for a comprehensive package, whatever it is they have in mind, I think we really ought to all commit to taking the steps that are before us tonight. Both the government members who have spoken in this debate tonight said that the bill is vague in its intent and it is somehow technically imperfect. I find that to be a very flawed argument, because the bill is deliberately vague in its construct in order to give the government the scope to do what it needs to do via regulation to deliver an outcome for the victims. That is why it is deliberately vague in its design—deliberately vague, not accidentally vague. It is not technically flawed but concise and clear in its intention to give the government the scope to deliver the outcome to the victims of terrorism. It is deliberate. I think the members opposite have accidentally read something into the bill that they ought not to have read into it.

We are saying to the government that we are not going to prescribe every single circumstance that people might be in—which is not possible to do. We are saying that there are working examples and models of victims of crime legislation in every state and territory in this country. The member for Fowler, who has just joined us in the chamber, has a great interest in policing matters and knows that victims of crime legislation functions very well. The member for Newcastle mentioned such legislation, and I would ask her to reference it. This is perhaps where we are seeing a flaw in the operation of the federal government. We cannot possibly prescribe every single circumstance to which compensation might apply. We need a deliberate scheme that says that, by regulation, the government can design circumstances that are appropriate to the situations that emerge.

The financial impact of this legislation is absolutely negligible. There has been talk of $75,000 payments. This is a private member’s bill that would have no impact on our bottom line other than the most minor. It would not be open to rorting or any abuse of the system. The kinds of contentions that we are hearing from members opposite are, I think, of a purely political design to attempt to pass off this bill and move on to something else.

I stand here tonight and say to every single member of the Labor Party: if you have a bill in the pipeline, that is fantastic—bring that forward. Bring it forward today. Bring it forward tomorrow. Bring it forward next week. But let us not pass up this opportunity by saying that the Leader of the Opposition is playing politics, if you do not have an alternative strategy or response. Let us see that response. The Leader of the Opposition has put forward this bill with the best of intentions, realising that there has been a lapse in government support over the last decade in terms of the emergence of the terrorist situation. I urge members opposite to get with this agenda and do something rather than express concern about this bill.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sadly, it is a fact that Australians have experienced and still are experiencing grief and suffering as a result of terrorist activities around the world. Since September 11, in 2001, over 300 Australians have been either killed or seriously injured in terrorist incidents overseas. Providing assistance to the victims of terrorist acts is undoubtedly a highly significant issue and, certainly, one that the government take seriously—and I do not think that has been contested by anyone—as, by the way, did the previous, coalition government, particularly after the Bali bombings. So I am a little surprised by the way this matter has been brought before us, in the Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well the position of the Attorney-General’s Department and the work that is being undertaken there presently to progress this in a cooperative way that hopefully satisfies everybody’s interests. However, bringing forward a bill that is deliberately vague—as we were told—lacks specificity and relies on regulations is not the way to go about providing proper opportunities for redress for the victims of terrorist attacks overseas.

I will digress slightly. In order to combat the rising global issue of terrorism, Australia has certainly been taking action, both here and abroad. Experience shows that the most effective way to protect Australia from the threat of terrorism is to take the fight to the source. In our region, the Australian Federal Police work particularly closely with their Indonesian counterparts on counterterrorism matters. The Australian Federal Police were successful in establishing the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation, whose responsibility it is to enhance the ability of regional law enforcement to deal with transnational crime, particularly with a focus on counterterrorism. Much is happening in that space with the AFP providing critical assistance in the aftermath of the Bali bombing in 2002, the Jakarta embassy bombings and the Marriott Hotel bombing in 2005. The AFP has also deployed counterterrorism assets overseas.

When it comes to victims and their families, I know the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare, Kate Ellis, sitting at the table, some time back, when we were in opposition and after the attacks in Bali in 2005, made requests of the then Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, to address this very issue. Clearly, the way the government at the time responded in Bali was quite effective. I know Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, played a very significant role in that as well to make sure that people were looked after. But that does not mean to say that is the way it has got to stay.

When it comes to providing for the victims of terrorism and their families, we do have a responsibility. We will not be able to avoid that by simply saying that there is no legislation to support it. It happens and it happens now. The Attorney-General’s Department, which is accessing all the various agencies, is looking at the best ways of ensuring that we do put into a legislative scheme an arrangement that provides for matters such as ex gratia payments to victims of terrorist attacks overseas, provides for the families, provides assistance for funerals, provides for bereavement, provides for travel costs and recognises things such as lost wages that occur from terrorist acts. These are not uncommon things and I believe the Leader of the Opposition knows that because he has had discussions with the Attorney-General on these things. He knows this is being progressed. These are matters that should not be coming into this House as a way to politicise the fact that the legislation has not yet been produced.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, produce your legislation then.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tony, as you are aware, this is being progressed. You are being consulted on it. This is not being done a partisan basis. This is one that you have personally been consulted on. To take those consultations and bring this bill before the House—(Time expired)

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to strongly support the establishment of a process to assist those who are injured overseas due to terrorist acts. I also point out that the Leader of the Opposition has opened this debate tonight in an effort to gain bipartisan support for what I think is a very important addition to the support that is currently available. I want to acknowledge at the start of this debate the families of those who have been injured, have been wounded and have been disabled due to calamitous, unforeseen, unpredictable and terrible events such as the bombings in London, New York and South-East Asia. There is not a single person in this chamber who would not wish for them to have the finest medical care available.

That is not what the debate is about tonight, but nor is it an opportunity to criticise the health system that we have and say that it is insufficient. What this debate focuses on explicitly is the unique nature of these events. The fact is that Australia is involved in an asymmetric war and one that will take long-term dedication to win. For those who are caught up in it overseas, in a range of destinations far from home, they know that they have our full support. It is not enough to simply say the wheels are in motion and the services are available. To the speakers from the government side, I only need to look into the eyes of people who have experienced such horror to know that I never want to see them walking around soccer clubs selling meat trays and I do not want them to see them begging to be placed on a waiting list. I do not want to see them struggling to get health services, recovery services and rehabilitation services that no-one in this room could disagree are well deserved.

Let us remember the context here. We are a nation standing shoulder to shoulder with other Western economies determined to win this fight. The best way that we can do that is by saying that no matter where you fall, no matter where you are struck down in this unique war against terrorism, we will be behind you. It has already been said on this side of the chamber that if these wheels are in motion, if the plans are in place and if the bureaucrats are busy scribing away with plans to help people like this then please just bring them forward and show them.

This debate was not an opportunity to criticise or to undermine; it was simply a chance to say, ‘Let’s move right now. Let’s not go to the past and say, “Why didn’t it happen last year or the year before?”‘ It is not a chance for the member for Blair, over here, to read out an almost legalistic defence, which, it seems, he does every time he is presented with words from the Prime Minister’s office to read out. He is objecting to what I think is a completely meritorious proposition. He presents an almost legalistic opposition to a bill that is grounded in all the right reasons and grounded in the belief that we should do something for families like this if we possibly can.

It has been pointed out by the previous opposition speaker that this is not a large sum of money. It is not about the money. No-one could possibly say that. Nor should it be about a pernickety nickel and diming of this effort to look after Australians who are injured overseas. The line has to be drawn somewhere. That is how public life is. The case we have made on this side is that it is not about where one falls or where one is injured. It is about the unique nature of a terrorist act—that, no matter where it occurs, whether it occurs on our shores or overseas, this government will support those affected and their next of kin.

The Assisting the Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010 is intentionally broad enough to allow for those provisions to be further negotiated through regulation. It is a shame that this is being misread as being vague or non-specific. When I listened to the member for Newcastle’s speech, I was certain that, although you put that punchline in that you are not going to support the bill, deep in your heart you can see that this bill is a genuinely important advance for families who are affected by such unforeseen events as these. The government, late at night, has a chance to stand with us, both sides of the chamber together, and make an important, small but truly valuable advance for people who are affected in situations like this. It appears that chance is being passed over. To me that is a great shame.

I think we are a nation that could say we will do everything we can for people caught in the situation of a vile and detested terrorist act. We stand shoulder to shoulder in our abhorrence of such acts and yet it seems we cannot get bipartisan agreement to support what I think is such a meritorious, simple proposition: that there is financial assistance there to pay for rehabilitation, to ensure that services can be accessed and to make sure there is a range of financial options for people to be able to help their own family members in the case of an act of overseas terrorism.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.