Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to stand up this evening to add my support to what is a very important government initiative in combatting the threat of terrorism that is unfortunately becoming an ever-increasing risk to Australians both home and abroad. So I am pleased tonight to be able to add my comments on the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015. But, before I speak to the bill, I would like to make some related comments.

Those of us who are familiar with Western Australia and indeed St Georges Terrace would have regularly passed Anzac House, which is the home of the Returned Services League in Western Australia. Colleagues like Senator Cash and I are able to reflect on the fact that inscripted on the wall at Anzac House is this statement: 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.' When I was considering making a contribution to this important bill tonight, it was those words, 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance', that came to mind, because I see much of the initiatives in this bill being about vigilance—not for one moment underestimating the risk, nor for one moment implying that the threat is imagined, as it is very, very real. That quote, 'The price of freedom is external vigilance', is actually not the original quote. The original quote, which celebrates its 225th anniversary this month, is:

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.

It is often misattributed to the Irish lawyer and politician John Philpot Curran and to Thomas Jefferson. I think that quote demonstrates the very important point that, for hundreds of years, men acting independently or indeed collections of men and government have added to this requirement for constant vigilance in order to protect freedom and liberty.

This bill follows on from the foreign fighters bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014, which enhanced the capability of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to identify persons seeking to enter and depart Australia and noncitizens remaining in Australia. In the time that is available to me this evening, I would like to restrict my comments to a number of themes: to restate why these initiatives are very important; to reflect on some of the core initiatives that are contained in the legislation; to examine briefly why it is that biometrics are now such an important modern piece of our armoury in defending ourselves and defending the citizens of this and other countries; to comment briefly on the removal of the existing restrictions on collecting biometrics from minors, which I do think is a very important element for people to be aware of; to reflect briefly on the cooperation and the importance of cooperation contained in this legislation between ourselves and the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States; and to demonstrate that the threat that this legislation seeks to counter is not imagined but very, very real.

At the core of this bill are measures to focus on biometrics—more commonly termed 'personal identifiers' in the Migration Act—which are unique identifiers that are based on individual physical characteristics, such as facial image, fingerprints and iris, which can be digitised into a biometric template for automatic storage and checking. It is important to reflect on the fact that this is not new. Indeed, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has in fact been collecting biometrics images such as facial images and fingerprints from particular cohorts of noncitizens—so citizens not of Australia—since 2006 and since that time has progressively expanded its biometric collection program using a risk based approach, which I think is a very prudent way in which to test technologies and make Australians and non-Australian citizens accustomed to these important security measures. By way of example I would cite the 2010 experience when the department commenced collecting biometrics from noncitizens applying for protection in Australia and from overseas applicants for visas in particular higher risk countries. But, more significantly, I think it is important to be very aware of why biometrics are such an important modern tool in the armoury that this government has chosen to protect its citizens and, indeed, anyone who might be travelling to and from Australia.

As has been previously mentioned, biometrics are a very important integrity measure that contribute significantly to not just protecting Australia's borders but also preventing the entry of persons who may threaten the Australian community—those who are residing here permanently and those who might be travelling to Australia on holidays. Once anchored to a person's biographic information, such as name, nationality and date of birth, a biometric adds significant information and profile to the portfolio's capability to verify that a person is who they claim to be. This is at the core of this initiative. What we are seeking to do is to verify beyond doubt that someone's claim to be someone is in fact their claim and an accurate claim, and not one that is being misused or abused by others. This initiative adds significantly to the importance of our security arrangements, to our law enforcement initiatives and of course to building our strong immigration information for the future.

I note that Senator Lazarus reflected briefly on some of the civil liberties or human rights implications of this bill. It will be interesting to see the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights when it provides its report, not just on this but on other particular initiatives, to find and to explore how government has struck the right balance with respect to people's civil liberties—as I prefer to call them; others might prefer to call them human rights—how privacy has been maintained and how fair trial has been maintained. Of course, that information will come to the Senate in due course.

Staying briefly with the issue of biometrics, biometrics are more accurate than document-based checks of biographic detail, such as name, date of birth and nationality because they are relatively stable over time and are significantly more difficult to forge. Those personal characteristics—those personal identifiers that we have talked about—are much more difficult to put to fraudulent use. As the utility of collecting biometrics rests on a foundation of accurate identification, fingerprints provide higher integrity identity assurance than identity documentation or facial images. We have often heard in the broader debate about border immigration of people choosing to lose their identification documents and people coming to Australia without documentation. Indeed, it is very hard to come to Australia without a fingerprint or a facial image.

Finally, I want to reflect briefly on the very important issue of the removal of existing restrictions on collecting biometrics from minors, because this is a particularly important initiative and one that needs to be very well known and clear to people when we are debating this bill. The removal of existing restrictions on collecting biometrics from minors is primarily a child protection measure aimed at preventing child trafficking and/or smuggling. Collecting personal identifiers, particularly fingerprints, from children will permit a higher level of integrity in identifying minors overseas where known cases of child smuggling and trafficking reveal higher risk. This includes conducting fingerprint-based checks against lists of missing or abducted children with countries of suspected origin, as well as against Interpol missing persons' records. Fingerprints provide a unique capability to accurately identify individuals that is not possible using a facial image, particularly if the person is a minor. Unlike a facial image, which is subject to considerable change as a person ages into adulthood, fingerprints are relatively stable throughout a person's lifetime.

As was commented on in the contribution by the minister, an interesting element in this particular bill is the cooperation that will be exercised between us and the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom. In the contribution, the minister said:

Further, Australia, like the United States, the United Kingdom and many other countries face the return of potentially radicalised minors after participating in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. While it is an uncomfortable proposition that a minor may be capable of involvement in terrorist activities or extreme violence, the conflict in the Middle East has provided evidence of the involvement of children. Through the Five Country Conference data sharing arrangements, Australia would be able to access fingerprint-based records of minors who may already be known to the security agencies of other countries. Where a minor is suspected of involvement in a terrorist activity or serious criminal activity, fingerprints would enable searches of Five Country Conference partner databases and Australian law enforcement data holdings.

This is a particularly powerful initiative. It means that there is no safe haven for minors or those people who might seek to use minors as a way of propagating their violence and extremist ideas.

In conclusion, it is important to reflect and to reiterate the point that the government is committed to fulfilling its most important responsibility—that is, to protect Australians and Australia, its people and its national interests. The bill is an important part of preventing persons of risk from entering Australia and remaining in Australia undetected. The amendments will expand the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's capabilities to identify individuals through biometric checks, which are more accurate than current document-based checks. The bill creates a new legislative framework for collecting biometrics that will contribute to improved decision making, whether that decision is to grant a noncitizen a visa to come to Australia, to permit entry or departure at the border or to allow a noncitizen to remain in Australia.

At the very conclusion of my comments, I want to reflect on and add to what Senator Johnston had to say in his contribution where he emphasised the fact that what we are dealing with here is not perceived or imagined risk but are very real and current risks. Recent examples of Australians leaving to participate in foreign conflicts have highlighted the need for additional actions to detect such persons at the border. The example of convicted terrorist Khaled Sharrouf, who, in December 2013 used his brother's passport to leave Australia to participate in terrorist related activities, illustrates the need for fingerprint based checks. The collection measures in this bill provide the tools to stop people like Khaled Sharrouf at the border due to the high level of accuracy in identifying individuals provided by fingerprint verification. As unpleasant as it seems, that is a very real and necessary initiative. It has come at exactly the right time and I urge all members of the Senate to support these necessary reforms.