Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I rise to speak about the recent bushfires which have devastated Australian communities, scarred our landscape and left many citizens mourning the loss of family and loved ones following 33 deaths. Last week, both chambers passed condolence motions. We heard graphic details about the national disaster, when bushfires took their toll in lost lives, property, enormous loss of wildlife and economic cost. Can I, too, offer my condolences to those families who have suffered and are mourning the loss of their loved ones. Given their loss, it compels me to place the following on record.

Today, we live in a society characterised by extreme activism and, perhaps, eco-terrorism. Vocal minorities disregard the rule of law in pursuit of their objectives. They use the right to protest as a vehicle not only to break the law but also to damage property, disrupt people's daily lives and cause maximum chaos in society. A propensity for law-breaking has sharpened our awareness to an extent that surveillance has become the new norm in our society through the proliferation of security cameras. Our police forces rely on such methods of surveillance every day in order to keep us safe and achieve prosecutions. Some might argue that increased surveillance has become pervasive—welcome to the new world.

In August 2019, the media build-up of an impending hot, dry summer appears to have set the scene for the unhinged, including those with criminal intent, to act. It defies logic that the number of bushfires in different parts of Australia took hold so quickly and apparently all at once, thereby destroying property, livelihoods and wildlife and, in worst-case scenarios, causing the deaths of 33 people.

The history of our sunburnt country suggests that bushfires can start from lightning strikes, downwind spot fires from cinders in high winds, fallen powerlines, carelessness by citizens and, unfortunately, arson attack. I draw your attention to an article by Dr Paul Reid, an ecological criminologist and sustainability scientist at Monash University. His article was published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 18 November 2019 and was titled 'Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-made'. The article gave an excellent synopsis of the facts with respect to bushfires in Australia. It stated, 'There are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year,' and it notes that satellite studies have shown that lightning strikes are responsible for only 13 per cent of all fires. Dr Reid further stated:

A 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time—40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental. This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37 per cent accidental. Combined, they reach the same conclusion: 87 per cent are man-made.

Importantly, Dr Reid draws a distinction with the recent fires in New South Wales and Queensland and noted that there were no lightning strikes on most of the days when the fires started in September 2019.

I should point out that there have been many inquiries into bushfires over the years, including the royal commission into the Black Saturday Victorian bushfires in 2009. Recommendations including those relating to land clearing, reductions of fuel loads and arson not only have been inadequate but also have not been fully implemented. Several media reports since last year have indicated that arson was a key factor and many arrests had been made.

Indeed, taking up Dr Reid's work, supported by his satellite data analysis, and given the extreme number of fires that occurred in September 2019, the scenario not only gave the impression of the possibility of arsonist attack but also suggests a level of coordination. Given the loss of life, the extensive loss of property, the psychological costs to our communities and the devastating loss of wildlife, questions need to be asked. Those alleged arsonists already arrested need to be thoroughly investigated by law enforcement. Who are they? What was their motive and intent? Are they lone actors or part of a sinister collective conducting ecoterrorism? Was there a level of coordination? Were any organisations with a history of law-breaking involved in order to further their respective narratives?

On 21 May 2004, David Crowe wrote a most informative article in the Australian Financial Review about Crossbow's capability, its application to law enforcement and the importance of data mining through searching disparate databases. In this regard, metadata is an important resource and tool for combating terrorism. Surely data-mining programs such as Crossbow or its successor would be very useful to establish any six degrees of separation between those who might be involved in unlawful activities. Forensic analysis of communications metadata remains an important tool to gather evidence and counter potential terrorist activities in what can only be described as today's uncertain world.

On 26 March 2015 our parliament passed Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, requiring retention of a defined set of data for a period of two years. As stated by the then Attorney-General Brandis and Communications Minister Turnbull in their press release of 2016, 'metadata is the basic building block in nearly every counterterrorism, counter-espionage and organised crime investigation'. Surely this is a starting point with those already arrested. What role is the Australian Federal Police taking with respect to investigations and the discovery of evidence within communications metadata? Should the Australian Signals Directorate be assisting in this regard to rule out—or otherwise—potential overseas components being held by ecoterrorists, noting that arsonists were active in California last year? Have we reached the point where satellite surveillance metadata from our various national agencies needs to be examined at the respective initial flashpoints as part of investigative resources and tools to assist in gathering evidence to prosecute those responsible? Given the loss of life, the extensive loss of property and the economic impact, was ecoterrorism an agenda item at any of the recent meetings of the National Security Committee of Cabinet? If not, why not? The Australian public deserves answers. And so I ask: who is taking the lead to get to the truth? The 33 lives lost must not be ignored by those charged with our security. We owe it to them to get to the bottom of the how and the why.