Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must thank the member for Bruce for spruiking my 50th birthday. I believe that today I have found a cheerleader in the member for Bruce.

I have come in today to talk about countering violent extremism, an area that I have some 10 years experience in. Since being elected to parliament I have had several families contact me—and they are still contacting me, even though I have kind of left that life behind. Many of them are desperate to find some form of services or support as they grapple with the very real issue and real prospect of the radicalisation of their young people, whether it be their children, their nephews or their nieces, or their daughters. Oftentimes it is not a case of radicalisation, but that does not stop the parents from contacting me. Nevertheless, they still need help.

So I rise today to talk a little bit about what the government is doing in this space. The government stated that they have tripled investment in countering-violent-extremism programs from around $3 million per annum to more than $40 million over four years. As someone who has worked in the field, who has studied in the field, who has worked internationally in the field and who actually set up a not-for-profit community-based organisation to counter violent extremism, I think I have a pretty good handle on this—and here is what I understand.

In 2015 the government announced the Living Safe Together grants program, which awarded $1.9 million to 40 community-based organisations. Those grants did not provide for service delivery. They provided only for capacity building, explicitly for the design and development of new services, to build more sustainable capacity in existing services and to strengthen existing services to address radicalisation. That program funding was approved in two tranches. In late April 2015 the Attorney-General's Department recommended, and the Attorney-General approved, funding of $1.6 million for 34 applications. In late May 2015 the Attorney-General's Department recommended, and in early June 2015 the Minister for Justice approved, an additional $365,122 in grant funding for a further eight projects.

A review of this Living Safe Together program by the National Audit Office found that, at the time he was asked to approve funding, the Attorney-General was advised that, upon completion of their projects, it was expected that funding recipients would register on the directory of CVE intervention services, known as the CVE Directory. The CVE Directory was to be used to connect at-risk individuals with appropriate services. The ANAO report continued:

However, a key shortcoming in the programme guidelines was that AGD had not made clear enough to applicants that a key purpose of awarding grants was to have funding recipients register for the CVE Directory. Thirteen funding recipients have indicated to AGD that they will participate in the directory, but two have advised they will not and the intentions of a further 26 recipients are not yet known.

In short—and, in fact, to date, almost two years later—there is no directory of CVE intervention services, despite an evidence-based need for such services in the community. In addition, the report found that only 21 of the 42 recommended and approved applications should have been successful and that there were continuing deficiencies in the Attorney-General's Department's approach to assessing the eligibility and merit of applications.

The audit found 21 applicants did not provide letters of support, including four that were awarded funding. It also found that the Attorney-General's Department did not follow up with referees who could not be contacted during the initial phone call. The report found that the department also decided not to contact some referees. But there is more. A further $1 million in funding was also given for the establishment of an Australian Intervention Support Hub in August 2015. There were no terms of reference, no clear outcomes and no definite outputs. To date, I have received no clear answer as to where $1 million went and what that support hub has achieved.

All of this underscores the dire situation we have in Australia, where this government continues to shirk its responsibility to keep Australians safe by taking a comprehensive approach to prevention of violent extremism and enabling adequate interventions when people are found to be moving towards dangerous thoughts and behaviours that put Australians at risk. There is no family program, for instance—and families are at the forefront of combating radicalisation. A rapid evidence assessment of vulnerability and resilience to al-Qaeda violent extremism as well as other types of violent activity that was prepared for the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism identifies physical risk factors, including support and reinforcement from family and peers, interpersonal bonds, and social settings and spaces that provide opportunities for involvement and recruitment. These studies, amongst others, demonstrate that family, peers and interpersonal bonds play a critical role in the prevention of radicalisation and evidence the need for strategies to support the capacity of persons attached to an individual at any stage of the radicalisation process to intervene in that process. Past cases demonstrate that family members and friends can be highly effective in planting the seeds of doubt that cause individuals to leave terrorism behind.

The German based HAYAT program provides counselling to family members and friends who are of high social and emotional significance to a radicalised individual on how to engage them in discussions and develop alternative reference groups in opposition to radical structures. There is no similar program in Australia and this government has not indicated any willingness to undertake a program that puts families at the forefront of helping young people who are becoming radicalised to move away from radicalised thoughts and behaviours. In fact, Australian research actually provides a strong case for the need for an appropriate CVE program that focuses on families and other socialising agents. Anecdotal evidence—and much of it comes from me personally having dealt with families—shows that concerned persons, particularly parents, seeking advice regarding radicalised individuals simply do not have access to appropriate support mechanisms or avenues or even just advice.

Despite all this evidence and despite the input from professionals and experts from Australia and internationally, this government has failed time and time again to heed the call for a comprehensive prevention and intervention framework. We cannot arrest our way out of radicalisation. Arresting young people who are on the pathway to radicalisation and incarcerating them does not stop them from becoming further radicalised. If anything, it increases their propensity to radicalisation and violent extremism. We need a more comprehensive program that puts families at the forefront, recognises influence, recognises socialising agents and recognises the role of religious institutions and education in preventing radicalisation and preventing terrorism in the first place. We cannot arrest our way out of this; we cannot fight our way out of this. We cannot make the mistake of assuming that, by decimating the capability of terrorists on the ground in foreign lands, we can prevent terrorism and violent extremism from taking hold in our suburbs and our homes. We learnt that mistake. We learnt that the traditional approach to terrorism as a hot war where we could eradicate the terrorists' capability did not stop the spread of al-Qaeda inspired and ISIS inspired terrorism. We know it does not work.

Every single country that I have worked with in this space—and I have worked with many—acknowledges this. Every country, from the US to the UK to Kenya and Jordan, knows this. Yet this government does nothing, or it wastes taxpayers' money on ineffective and badly managed programs. Where is the accountability? Why won't this government answer simple questions about where the money went—answers that Australians deserve to have?

How can this government continue to claim that they have at heart the security and safety interests of all Australians? The evidence shows that the programs that are needed simply do not exist and that parents and families are still struggling to find the services they need when they have a concern about a young person in their midst becoming radicalised.