Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is an honour to speak in this debate on the provisions in the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Marking of Plastic Explosives) Bill 2006 to mark plastic explosives for the purpose of their detection. This initiative on behalf of the government flows from a decision of the government to endorse the MARPLEX Convention, which is the last of the 13 United Nations counter-terrorism conventions to which Australia previously had not been a party.

The proposals for the marking of plastic explosives resulted from inquiries and the courtroom saga which followed the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103—the airliner the Maid of the Seaswith a bomb that was detonated in the aircraft above Scotland on 21 December, 1988. In that explosion, 243 passengers and 16 crew on board the aircraft were killed as a result of between 340 and 450 grams of plastic explosive being detonated in the forward cargo hold of the aircraft and triggering a sequence of events that led to its rapid destruction, with the aircraft falling on Lockerbie, Scotland. The consequences of that incident shook the world. In 2001, one of two Libyans accused of the bombing was found guilty.

It is understood that the bombing occurred when the plastic explosive was put inside a radio cassette recorder and loaded on board the plane. Even a small quantity of plastic explosive for this terrible purpose creates a very real danger. So it is a good thing that, in lining up with the UN counter-terrorism conventions, Australia’s government has come on board with something that will effectively make it much more difficult for terrorists to be able to use this type of material in such an evil way.

The process of identifying where the bomb came from in the case of the Lockerbie disaster was exhaustive. The court case with Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a married man with children, was a long and difficult process. There were 230 witnesses; there were 10,230-odd pages of transcript generated by that trial. But there is no doubt that all involved in that investigation, beginning on the day of the terrible crash, really did get to the very bottom of that incident, and in 2002 the appeal by Mr al-Megrahi was rejected, and rightly so.

I want to speak about the implementation of obligations under the UN convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purposes of detection. The convention is known as MARPLEX. Australia is one of 128 parties to the convention, which has been in force since June 1998. The coalition government made this an election commitment in 2004. The convention followed the Lockerbie bombing, and the bill will provide a scheme to detect plastic explosives and continue the work of this government against terrorism. We can learn from those horrific experiences of the past and put into place all we can to stop them from recurring.

The bill tackles the risk of legitimate plastic explosives being diverted to uses such as terrorism. Closer management of the stocks of plastic explosives will greatly decrease the opportunities for people wanting to engage in criminal activity. The acts changed under this bill include the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Customs Act 1901, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, the Crimes Act 1914, the Foreign Evidence Act 1994, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. There will be new offences created under this bill of manufacturing, trafficking, possessing, importing or exporting unmarked plastic explosives.

People who traffic, import or export unmarked plastic explosives will face up to 10 years imprisonment under this legislation. An individual engaged in the process of manufacturing, as well as the person operating behind that individual such as an employer or a manager et cetera, would face two years imprisonment. The same penalty applies for a person in possession of unmarked plastic explosive. To assist our legitimate manufacturers there will be a six-month delay in the commencement of the bill and a six-month transition period, giving 12 months for manufacturers to comply with the provisions therein. The provisions of the bill will require that a marker be incorporated in the manufacture of plastic explosive. It will impose on state parties the obligation to control the possession and transfer of existing stocks of unmarked explosives.

The first marking requirement is that the plastic explosive contains a minimum concentration of one of the four markers and that the marker is distributed homogeneously throughout the explosive. Secondly, not less than 10 years should have elapsed since the manufacture of the explosive, as marking agents deteriorate over time. This marker ensures that they are used or destroyed by the end of their shelf life. As well as amending the Criminal Code, the bill also amends the Customs Act. This amendment provides our Customs officers with appropriate powers to search and seize in accordance with this legislation during their policing of our borders.

In dealing with this legislation, the government is taking a measured and effective response in line with authorities the world over. I think it is a mark of this government that we have acted to ensure that appropriate steps are taken without unduly inconveniencing or undermining people’s right to go on with their daily lives. It is an important part of dealing with terrorism that we do not throw away some of the basic freedoms of our country in seeking to defeat the terrorists, because in doing such a thing the terrorists would, of course, have won. This is a common-sense measure that will allow plastic explosives used for legitimate purposes in our country to be marked and therefore to be immediately identifiable and allow their manufacture and handling to be much more effectively policed.

The amendments to the Customs Act provide that the packaging of explosives will also be served by the bill, with packaging and legible information displayed on the packaging to be undertaken within 24 hours of manufacture. It must be enclosed in a wrapper with the clear upper-case lettering ‘PLASTIC EXPLOSIVE’ together with the date of manufacture, the name of the detection agent, that agent as a percentage of the mass and the type of plastic explosive. This is more stringent than the UN recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods, the current Australian standards or the Australian explosives code—all specify no more than a general identification as an explosive or demolition product.

There will be exemptions to allow the ADF or Federal Police to use unmarked plastic explosives for a seven-day period before requiring authorisation. The exemptions are: an exemption from marking of existing stocks for three years, an exemption for defence and police purposes for 15 years, and an exemption on explosives used for research purposes.

Since the process began way back in 1988 with the investigation into the initial explosion and the killing of the people at Lockerbie, there has been a very diligent process that has looked into all the possible ramifications. That has tied up the loose ends on that bombing and has done it, I think, very effectively. Its impact on our daily lives is apparent in legislation such as this. A similar process is still ongoing in relation to the September 11 bombings in 2001. It is interesting to note that by the time September 2001 came about, the bombing at Lockerbie had already resulted in the conviction of Mr Ali al-Megrahi.

The behaviour of terrorists and the ramifications of their behaviour need to be carefully examined by governments. There is no way that we can accept a trailing off in the response to terrorism, even over long periods when terrorism activity, at least within our sphere here in Australia, appears to have been on the wane.

We need to respond effectively and to maintain the vigilance that we have had over the period since September 2001, in particular, but also as a result of incidents such as this one. There are still ramifications of the Lockerbie bombing that may yet impinge and affect our prospects within Australia of being able to go about our daily lives in a peaceful manner. The prospect of such a small quantity of plastic explosives being sufficient to bring down an airliner still remains and, while marking explosives will provide assistance, it will not, at the end of the day, guarantee us any kind of ongoing protection from the use of plastic explosives in such a way. Sadly, there are also many other ways and many other manners in which terrorists can act to bring down aircraft, and the grim reality of that was revealed on 11 September 2001 and in other incidents.

Within Australia we are taking steps that provide greater security at our airports. We are taking steps that ensure that the monitoring of agricultural chemicals and other similar products that can be misused by terrorists is ongoing. We are being, I believe, entirely responsible in taking up those issues. The member opposite who spoke previously did raise a number of incidents and, while those incidents were obviously matters that he felt worthy of being raised, what is important is the way in which the government responds to those incidents. I think the response in every case has been appropriate and measured, and that reflects well on the authorities that are handling those issues. Even with frivolous issues, such as people acting inappropriately on airport tarmacs—for example, the incident where the person was driving around with a camel suit on—all of those things have ramifications for the way in which we manage our affairs. You will not stop people from misbehaving from time to time, but when those things do inform the debate, I think we can trust the authorities to respond effectively. Certainly, in those cases, it has been revealed that they have responded very well.

As I said earlier, there are exemptions affecting the ADF and the Federal Police. Research, however, covers the development and testing of new or modified explosives, development or testing of explosives detection equipment, training in explosives detection and forensic science. The government is undertaking this type of research in a manner that goes beyond the provisions of the convention, as does the authorisation for the ADF and AFP to destroy unmarked plastic explosives obtained in the course of overseas operation and the forfeiture and surrender of unmarked plastic explosives. It is the latest in a long line of counter-terrorism measures undertaken by this government and it will continue the comprehensive approach it has taken to cover any foreseeable risk areas. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context