Like most senators I am very conscious that this bill has attracted widespread public attention and more than its fair share of controversy.

While some of the debate and commentary has been rather extreme, indeed almost hysterical at times, there has also been a great deal of measured and thoughtful consideration of the bill.

In particular, I recognise that many in the community have a deep and abiding concern for the implications of the bill.

And rightly so.

The provisions of the bill give powers to our state and federal police services and intelligence agencies that have few precedents in Australian legal history.

Detention Orders, control orders and expanded stop, question and search powers and the restrictions that surround them are not usually part of our criminal justice system.

I agree that these represent significant intrusions on our liberties as Australian citizens.

They curtail rights of movement, association, speech and legal process that we in this democracy have taken for granted ever since responsible government in the 19th century.

Because these liberties are our birthright, and they are the very foundation of our democracy we should not quickly, easily or carelessly give them up.

To stand in this great chamber of democracy and pass laws that clearly restrict the liberty of the citizen is something I do only very reluctantly.

Indeed, it is my view that we could only justify doing so if we satisfy two tests.

First, that adequate safeguards have been put in place to ensure that there are no abuses of the extraordinary powers given to the police and other agencies, and Second, that there is a compelling and justifiable reason to give up our rights.

I am persuaded that these conditions have been met in relation to the bill.

With regards to safeguards the bill is immeasurably improved from the time it first came to my attention.

Over the last two months my Coalition party colleagues and senators from all sides of the chamber have done a remarkable job to improve the bill.

I won’t go into the detail Mr President, but judicial and administrative processes, rights to legal representation, conditions of control and detention, oversight by the Ombudsman and the Inspector General for Intelligence and Security, opportunities for review and oversight, defences to the detention provisions and more.

I know some will argue that the safeguards do not go far enough.

That the balance struck between the preservation of rights and the need for new and invasive powers leans too far in the direction of invasion. And consequentially the cost is too great.

Certainly the sedition provisions need further attention. I am delighted the Attorney-General has agreed to review them and trust it will be speedy.

But the bill has to been seen as a package and as such I believe that overall it strikes the right balance.

The second issue, Mr President is the threat. Do we face so serious a challenge to our national security as to justify the compromises we are being forced to make with our rights and liberties?

Well no doubt men and women of goodwill could disagree on this subject, but to my mind the answer is clear.

We now live in an era of growing insecurity. There are of course many sources of this insecurity but one of the most visible and dangerous is undoubtedly the al Qaeda network with its bloody commitment to the use of terrorism to achieve its goals.

Al Qaeda confronts us with a threat unlike any in our recent history.

It presents us with the modern face of international terrorism.

Earlier this year, the US State Department’s National Counter-terrorism Centre reported that in 2005 651 significant terrorism incidents resulted in 9000 injuries and 651 deaths.

No doubt 2005 will be an equally bloody year in this grim record.

Some of the places where the attacks have occurred in recent years are very familiar to us:—London, Madrid, Jakarta and Bali.

Others are less so: the Yemen, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia to name but a few.

Whether near or far, the names remind us that terrorism is a global phenomenon and if the terrorists decide to strike, few places are immune from their reach.

The source of this threat is the same everywhere.

It is Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda’s global network of Islamic fundamentalists whose radical jihadist agenda would see the world transformed to its own image.

But the al Qaeda network of today is very different from that perpetrated the 9/1 1 attacks in the US.

That al Qaeda was a hierarchical unitary organisation. It had a clear centre of gravity in Afghanistan and all the hallmarks of a rather lumbering bureaucracy.

Much of that organisation has now been destroyed.

Leaders killed capture or arrested Training Bases discovered and destroyed Weapons seized along with manuals, tapes and great deal of propaganda material, all testifying to bin Laden’s murderous intentions.

The threat we face today is very different.

Bin Laden and his henchmen have engineered a remarkable transformation of their organisation.

Shown themselves to be frighteningly resilient, flexible and adaptable.

As a result they still represent a very formidable threat.

It is not a threat that we face alone. It is threat that confronts many states.

Hoffman in evidence before US congress recently argued that the al Qaeda movement had now reconstituted itself into four distinct elements:

• Al Qaeda Central: the remnants of the pre 9/11 al Qaeda organisation. It is believed this hardcore remains centred in and around Pakistan and continues to exert some coordination in mounting attacks, collecting intelligence, planning operations and approving their execution.
• Al Qaeda Affiliates and Associates: these are the formally established insurgent groups who have benefited from bin Laden’s largesse or spiritual guidance and received training, arms and money: Groups like Abu Masab al Zarqawi’s force ion Iraq, Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Laskar-e-Tayyiba.
• Al Qaeda locals: an amorphous group of al Qaeda adherents likely to have some previous terrorism experience in places like Chechnya and Algeria and therefore some direct connection with al Qaeda
• Al Qaeda Network: these are the home grown Islamic radicals who have no direct connection with al Qaeda, but are nevertheless willing to carry out terrorist attacks in solidarity with or support of al Qaeda radical agenda.

The last of these categories is the newest of al Qaeda’s incarnations. It adds a fresh and very worrying dimension to the terrorist threat.

It was terrorism in this group that helped conduct the Madrid bombings, who killed Theo Van Gough in the Netherlands in November 2004 and perpetrated the London attacks in July this year.

As Hoffman remarks, they are identified by a deep commitment to their faith -admiration of bin Laden and the cathartic blow he struck against the US on 9/11, a shared sense of enmity and grievance towards the United States and a profoundly shared sense of alienation from their host nations.

It is easy to suggest that all of this remote from Australia and its interests.

Of course Bali, London and Jakarta tell us otherwise –Australians were casualties.

Beyond those attacks though, we have declarations from the al Qaeda itself stating that Australia is a target.

On 22 May 2003, Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s top lieutenant, calls on Muslims to ‘burn the ground under the feet’ of Western crusaders and urges Muslims to attack the embassies and commercial interests of the US, Britain, Australia and Norway.

On 10 August 2005, an English speaking man with an apparent Australian accent, appears in a videotaped message calling for war on the West.

The threat may not be imminent, and it maybe a low priority. But on the basis of these statements we would utterly foolish if we did not regard it as is real and credible.

Faced with this threat, I am very aware that some of the 300,000 Muslims who now live in Australia feel apprehensive and uneasy. Indeed some, I believe have been subject to disgraceful racial abuse.

There can be no excuse for this behaviour.

There is precious little evidence that Muslims in Australia feel the kind of disaffection and alienation from society that exists among some Muslims groups in countries in western Europe.

We are fortunate that overwhelmingly Muslims in Australia are anything but disaffected.

They make a significant contribution to Australian society.

Overwhelmingly, they are decent law abiding citizens who are rightly appalled by the monstrous acts of terror committed in the name of Islam.

I suspect that many would wish to have removed from among their ranks, the people who so disgracefully bring Islam into disrepute.

But we have to be realistic and acknowledge that there may be some whatever their faith who sympathise with al Qaeda and would be happy to act as agents of terror.

What is a government to do? Ignore the danger? Neglect the threat? Hope that it might go way?

None of those things. It does what any responsible government must do and pursue policies that will help protect its citizens by offering us some chance of preventing an attack before it materialises.

That is the intent of this bill.

I will be the first to acknowledge that this alone or by itself is not an adequate counter terrorism strategy. It doesn’t come any where near it.

It is only a small part of what we will have to do before al Qaeda is defeated and the scourge of terrorism brought to an end.

Not least any strategy must address the factors that cause the despair and destructive visions that cause people to embrace rather than reject al Qaeda and its bloody strategy.

This bill is part of the strategy.

Like all senators, I hope the powers it gives to the government will only ever need to be used sparingly, better still, let us hope that they will never shave to be used.

Though on present evidence that seems unlikely.

But if the powers are never used we will all be relieved and grateful.

Let us hope that is the case.

In the meantime, let us make sure we are prepared.

Let us do everything that is reasonably acceptable in our democracy to avoid the spectacle of a terrorist attack on our own soil.

I commend the bill to the senate.