Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This is the last Greens amendment. The Greens oppose section 72.42 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 32) to page 7 (line 28), section 72.42 TO BE OPPOSED .

I advise the Senate that I am going to speak to it only briefly because Senator Feeney and I have already canvassed these issues at great length. So, for senators who just came into the chamber and are not sure what you just voted on, we just voted to assist the United States government to continue dropping cluster weapons, which is a great shame because that is directly in contravention of the convention.

The amendment we will shortly put to the vote is about allowing the US government, or others, I guess—as Senator Feeney quite rightly pointed out, it is not just the United States that deploys these awful things—to host them in Australia. The bill explicitly permits the hosting, stationing and stockpiling of these weapons on Australian soil; however, we were told earlier in the day that it is government policy that this not occur. The bill as drafted—and the drafters of the bill would not have done this by mistake; this is not lazy language; this is something that has been thought about and has been drifting around for at least two years that we are aware of—explicitly permits these materials to be stockpiled on Australian soil. We have the minister's word and we have a commitment that at some stage in the future, probably in the next couple of weeks, I guess, there will be a statement made which will enshrine this vague commitment in some sort of policy.

We still have not yet heard the coalition's policy. I recognise this is a bit unusual but I might see whether I can get Senator Scullion's attention as we go. We are aware that policies and governments change. It is more difficult to change a law, which would then need the consent of both houses of this parliament, than it is to flip a policy decision, which could of course occur overnight. The minister will be well aware of this.

Senator Scullion, if I could interrupt your conversation—which is no doubt deeply engrossing!—to ask you to put a coalition policy on the record, because this is something the Australian people need to know. The Australian government has refused to do it. Should the coalition win government, would it be the policy of the coalition to allow stockpiles of cluster weapons to be permitted on Australian soil? Senator Scullion, you can take that on notice if you wish. You are obviously within your rights to completely ignore me. But, in the event that the coalition hold government at some stage in the future, the law will allow US forces in Darwin—obviously, a town close to your own heart—to store these hideous weapons within four or five kilometres of your electorate office. This is something that obviously you would be very keen to know.

What is coalition policy on the storage or transit of cluster weapons through Australian airspace, waters or on Australian soil? This is not an academic question. This base is under establishment. It is the joint facility, if that is the accepted language. It is established now—the first contingent of US Marines is here.

I should acknowledge that the Minister for Defence did say as long ago as November 2011 that the government would make a statement when Australia ratified the convention that the government will not approve the stockpiling of cluster munitions here. So the law explicitly says that it can happen; government policy is that it will not. What is coalition policy? Be aware that a lot of people are listening to this debate. If the coalition chooses not to put a policy on the public record, people will have to interpret that as they can.

I recognise I have put you on the spot, Senator Scullion. This debate still has some way to run. If you could indicate whether you would be able to get us a position, even if you are not certain what it is, I would greatly appreciate it. You will shortly be voting, I suspect, against an amendment that would close that loophole and enshrine in law what Senator Feeney says is the government's position anyhow and it would certainly be the Australian Greens' position. The government says it will not approve the stockpiling of cluster weapons here. If that is the intention, put it in the bill. That is all we are asking and that is what this amendment would do.

Why do we still have in this legislation clauses that explicitly permit countries not party to the convention to stockpile these weapons here? If we are for their eradication, that has nothing to do with interoperability; that is about enabling the deployment of the weapons, which is specifically and formally precluded under article 1 of the convention that we say we are signing.

I said this in my second reading speech, but it does bear repeating. The Harvard International Human Rights Clinic has made this very clear. This is akin to allowing Australian military personnel to load and aim the gun as long as they did not pull the trigger. If that is the case, at least let us say that that is what is going on here. Michelle Fay of the Cluster Munition Coalition has said today in a piece on the website onlineopinion.com.au:

The government has created a confusing situation where it says it will not approve foreign stockpiles but it has drafted legislation which plainly allows such stockpiling to occur. So the Greens amendments strike this material from the bill.

Senator Scullion, I would welcome an indication from you as to whether or not you are able to put a coalition position on the record so that the Australian people are clear, if at some unlikely future time there is a change of government—who knows; these things happen—whether or not the policy will stand or will be overturned.