By political correspondent Emma Griffiths
Monday 22 September 2014
Video: 'Australians will have to endure more security than we're used to': Abbott
Photo: Tony Abbott told Parliament that vigilance would come at a cost. (AAP: Lukas Coch)
Related Story: Brandis agrees to amend anti-terrorism laws to explicitly ban torture
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned Australians that the balance between freedom and security "may have to shift", given the current "troubling" and "darkening" security situation.
Addressing Parliament for the first time since last week's major counter-terrorism raids in Sydney and Brisbane, Mr Abbott said the Government would do "whatever is possible" to keep Australians safe.
But he said that vigilance would come at a cost.
"Regrettably, for some time to come, Australians will have to endure more security than we're used to, and more inconvenience than we would like," he said.
"Regrettably for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift.
"There may be more restrictions on some, so that there can be more protection for others.
A fig leaf to avoid debate?
From the Iraq war to terrorism laws, politicians are using the idea of an irrefutable "national interest" to avoid community debate and parliamentary scrutiny, writes Danielle Chubb.
"Creating new offences that are harder to beat on a technicality may be a small price to pay for saving lives and for maintaining the social fabric of an open, free and multicultural nation."
Laws to strengthen the powers of security agencies are slated to be debated by the Senate tomorrow.
A second round of counter-terrorism legislation, targeting foreign fighters, is due to be introduced to Parliament this Wednesday.
It will prohibit travel to areas designated to be of "terrorist activity" unless the travel is proven to be for an "innocuous" reason.
"Our laws are being changed to make it easier to keep potential terrorists off the streets," Mr Abbott explained to Parliament.
"For one thing, it will be an offence to be in a designated area, for example, Raqqa in Syria, without a good reason.
"The only safe place for those who have been brutalised and militarised by fighting with terrorists is inside a maximum security prison."
'Nothing can justify the beheadings'
Raqqa, in Syria's northeast, is ruled by the Islamic State (IS) extremist group and is known to some as its de facto capital.
Australian forces have joined an international effort to fight IS and are on standby in the United Arab Emirates.
Mr Abbott said federal Cabinet would make a decision about sending forces into Iraq when he returned from a United Nations Security Council meeting due to be held later this week.
"Subsequently, the Cabinet will again consider the use of our forces to mount air strikes and to provide military advice in support of the Iraqi government," he said.
In Parliament, Mr Abbott explained again why he would not use the extremist group's name - Islamic State - but preferred the term "death cult" or the acronym ISIL, which stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
"I refuse to call a terrorist movement Islamic State because to do so demeans Islam and mocks the duties that a legitimate state bears to its citizens," Mr Abbott told Parliament.
"It can hardly be Islamic to kill without compunction, Shia, Yazidi, Turks, Christians and Sunni who don't share this death cult's view of the world.
"Nothing can justify the beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions, ethnic cleansing, rape and sexual slavery that have taken place in every captured town and city."
Leyonhjelm worries about press freedom
The counter-terrorism bill due to be debated in the Senate this week would give officers working on special operations immunity from prosecution providing they do not cause death, serious injury or commit a sexual offence.
Key Senate crossbencher David Leyonhjelm had raised concerns the provision could allow Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) agents to torture suspects.
Attorney-General George Brandis rejected the concerns, but said he would change the bill to "avoid the debate being diverted".
Senator Leyonhjelm remains worried about the legislation's impact on freedom of the press.
"The potential is there for a journalist or a blogger who writes about a special intelligence operation to go to jail for 10 years," he said.
"I don't like it and I would like it to be removed."
