Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the honourable member for Barton for raising this very important issue. I might not have exactly the same views as he does on every aspect of the motion but he has certainly highlighted a major world problem and, by raising this matter in the parliament, he helps us to think through the issues and hopefully look forward to appropriate responses.

Terrorism and the associated killing of innocent people is today a very real and disturbing issue. Unfortunately, the murder of unsuspecting bystanders as a means of achieving a political or religious goal is today so common that it could almost be regarded as the norm each week in the press and broadcast news services—and the member for Barton indicated the number of suicide bombings in the Middle East. Despite its growing commonness, terrorism as an instrument of ideological urging is nothing short of callous, cowardly and weak—and, I would argue, ineffective.

It seems clear that terrorism causes not only death and destruction but also, as its name suggests, terror. However, it is not difficult to argue that, in reality, it achieves nothing of substance. It generates worldwide animosity toward those who initiate such killings. It generates fear, creates social and economic instability and causes pain and suffering for the loved ones of the victims.

The subgroup of suicide terrorism is even more disturbing. This is an ideological platform whose presence has been greatly enhanced since September 11, 2001, in which an extreme version of suicide terrorism attack took place. The death of the suicide bomber himself or herself is the absolute final stage in a process that involves a number of people, from those who recruit future bombers through to educators, advisers, supporters and financiers. It regularly involves political or religious leaders and teachers who, unfortunately, also have the young and impressionable among their targets.

One website notes that suicide terrorism is seen to benefit the initiating organisation because such attacks generate widespread media coverage and this in turn ‘indicates a display of great determination and inclination for self-sacrifice on the part of the terrorists’. But I would add that this is of doubtful, even negative, benefit. The suggestion that widespread media coverage and notoriety generated by a suicide terrorist attack could somehow be an effective bargaining chip for the initiator to achieve specific goals is a strong indicator of how peculiar this particular form of terrorism is.

It seems unlikely that a forceful or strong-arm approach that demands that the world sit up and take notice would have the effect that terrorist organisations hope for and have convinced themselves that it would have. In fact, terrorism today certainly attracts the ire of most governments around the world, and most people do not want governments to deal with terrorists on the terrorists’ terms. Indiscriminate killing is not helpful in conveying the ideas of maturity, respect and cooperation, which are requirements at any negotiation table. Peaceful, sensible and mature negotiation is, in the long term, the most effective means of resolving a dispute and reaching the most acceptable solution for all concerned. Organisations and governments that support and promote suicide terrorism succeed only in alienating themselves from the global community and, in essence, alienating themselves from the very organisations and governments they wish to influence.

The Australian government is strongly outspoken against all forms of terrorism because the taking of innocent human life and the destruction of property in the pursuit of a self-centred goal is totally unacceptable. For this reason, the government has laws in place that clearly define a terrorist act and also make it illegal to be involved in terrorist activities. As I have said in the House on previous occasions, Australians are peace-loving people. Australia, on the whole, is a nation where all people are determined to live in harmony and are prepared to respect the views and beliefs of others. In general, we support the notion of a fair go for everyone. For these reasons, we strongly object to activities—and to those who carry them out—that will come between us and our reasonable objectives. Terrorist activity is an example of one such impediment. It has the potential to derail the good things that nations such as Australia stand for. Therefore, it is an offence in Australia to have any involvement at all in terrorism, to be involved in a terrorist act or to train for, prepare, plan, finance or otherwise support terrorist activities.

It is, in my view, unnecessary for Australia to draft its own international convention to rebuff and reject suicide terrorism, because a number of other documents are already in existence. It is important to remember that suicide terrorism is a subset of the overall terrorism movement. Terrorism is a stain on the world and it must be rejected. (Time expired)

See this speech in context