Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian government absolutely condemns all forms of terrorism and is committed to fighting it wherever it occurs. The first priority of course must be to protect the Australian people. Few would disagree with the description within this motion by the member for Barton, Mr McClelland. It is outstanding in defining some of the aspects of terrorism, and particularly suicide terrorism, which concern everybody. It mentions the education of youth, statements by religious and political leaders to encourage or incite terrorism, and inflammatory material—all of that contributes to the process.

Here in Australia, all of the current offences in the Criminal Code already capture all types of terrorist activity. So the first priority of the Australian government is to make sure things are right here at home. The Australian government has, step by step, been able to achieve that and is in the process of further extending the capacity of the Criminal Code to make sure that every area is covered off. The definition of a terrorist act under the Australian Criminal Code covers actions—such as those that will cause serious physical harm or death; endanger a person’s life; create a serious risk to public health or safety; cause serious damage to property; or seriously interfere with, disrupt or destroy an electronic system—with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and with the intention of coercing or influencing by intimidation the government of Australia, a foreign government or the public. That is what the Australian government has done and that is pretty comprehensive.

On the international scene, the motion is about Australia taking some sort of initiative in the United Nations. I wish I had as much confidence in the United Nations as the members of the opposition appear to, but the intention is excellent. The purpose is good. The only problem is that there are 13 international conventions on terrorism already in place. Australia started signing these conventions as long ago as 1963. The first one was the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft. In 1970 we signed the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft. That was followed in 1971 by the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. All sorts of events—and we can think of events such as the Olympic Games here—have created the necessity for these conventions. Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents. That was signed in 1973. Another convention was signed in 1979 on the taking of hostages: the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. In 1980 the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material was signed. In 1988 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation was signed.

In Rome, also in 1988, there was the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. In 1997 there was the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, in 1999 there was the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and in 2005 there was the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The only one that Australia is currently negotiating was one instigated in 1991—the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection—which is currently being considered by the Australian government.

I would contend that, good as this intention is, there is a range of conventions already in place. There are good definitions being sought. Australia has excellent definitions and is contributing towards the process of refining what is already occurring at the United Nations. I believe—and it is the view of the government—this new convention does not appear to add anything to what is already being done. There is already a comprehensive convention and it seeks to strengthen the international legal framework to combat terrorism, and that is in place.

See this speech in context