Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Marking of Plastic Explosives) Bill 2006. As the honourable member for Brisbane indicated earlier, the opposition will be supporting this bill, since its purpose is to give effect to the Montreal convention of 1991 on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection. We are, however, once again, highly critical of the government for the length of time it has taken to bring this relatively simple bill before this House.

It is only weeks since we debated the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006. I said then that it was a disgrace that such a vital national security bill was being brought in five years after September 11. At least with that bill, however, the government had the excuse that it was a complex bill which required extensive consultations with industry. There is no such excuse with this bill. Important though this bill is, it is a relatively simple one —but that does not make it any less urgent. In fact, the previous speaker, the member for Blair, referred to the fact that the events that prompted it were earlier than September 11—that is, the murder of the poor people who were on that Pan Am flight over Lockerbie by agents of the Libyan government using plastic explosives. If it has been relevant for that long, it ought to have been brought in earlier. Ever since that bombing in 1988 at Lockerbie, we have known of the dangers of plastic explosives. The Montreal convention dates from 1991, and the Howard government announced in October 2004 its intention to accede to the convention. The delay has been bad enough, but it is now two years since that undertaking was given.

I think the member for Brisbane outlined the reasons that we need to do this with plastic explosives—because of their malleable, valuable nature, because they are odourless and because of their ability to survive heat. These have all made them a favourite device for terrorists to use against airline traffic. We saw that with the mad shoe bomber who was arrested recently—a member of al-Qaeda who was based in England—who was trying to put plastic explosives in the sole of his shoes. He was not the only one.

There has been a consistent pattern with the government on these kinds of bills. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General talk tough on terrorism, but there is a dangerously wide gap between what they say and what they do. We have seen it in the maritime security legislation, and we have seen it with aviation security. We saw it last week with the money-laundering and terrorist-financing bill and now we see it again. What is the problem with the government’s security legislation? They cannot claim it is legislative obstruction, because we on this side of the House have supported all of the government’s antiterrorism bills, with amendments where necessary, just as we are doing in supporting this bill. In any case, since the government now control both houses, they can override any objections and push their bills through if they wish.

In my view, the problem is with the government itself. Despite its tough talk, national security is a part-time responsibility for this government. We have a part-time minister in charge of homeland security, the Attorney-General, who is responsible for a whole range of other things—from copyright, which he was in the parliament yesterday introducing, to family law. I am not denigrating the importance of those, but they do absorb a great amount of time of the Attorney-General. And, in my view, in these days, we need to have a full-time minister dealing with homeland security, just as they do in the United States. We also have a part-time Inspector of Transport Security—again, totally inadequate in these days when we are concerned with the ability of the Australian public to fly safely through any of our airports because of the international circumstances that rightly give people a reason to fear the kinds of problems that are being felt all over the world.

Labor believes that homeland security is a full-time, high-priority matter. In the honourable member for Brisbane, we have a full-time shadow minister for homeland security. I want to acknowledge, the day before our new frontbench is chosen, what an excellent job he has done in that portfolio. Thanks to his work, the days when the Howard government could claim some kind of political advantage over these issues are long over.

I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the honourable member for Brand, the former Leader of the Opposition, who through his 26-year career in this House in government and opposition has been an unswerving champion and advocate of Australian national security, both internationally and domestically. He was generally regarded as perhaps the best defence minister this country has had in the last 30 years. He was a trusted figure in Washington by both Republican and Democrat administrations.

I take this opportunity to say that, in my view, it is a great tragedy that Kim Beazley was denied the chance to be Prime Minister of Australia. He might not have made some of the strategic blunders in national security matters, which this bill is focused on, in the minor way that this government has. He would have appointed a full-time minister for homeland security. He would have created an Australian coastguard for the Royal Australian Navy for operational tasks where it is really needed rather than chasing fishing boats around the Timor Sea. However, I have known the new Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, for a long time. He is, in his own words, ‘a very determined bastard’. He will provide us with strong and clear-sighted leadership, and I congratulate him and his deputy, the honourable member for Lalor, on their elevation.

I know the new Leader of the Opposition’s views on national security, on issues like the matter considered in this bill and on foreign affairs. They are as strong as Kim Beazley’s. He is rock solid on the US-Australia alliance, while reserving the right of every trusted ally to disagree with particular administrations over particular issues. His experience and knowledge of international security matters as well as domestic security matters—including things as elevated as our relationship with China, our relationship with Indonesia, and the matters before the House today—are unparalleled on our side. I have every confidence that under our new leadership Labor will take to the next election a foreign policy and a national security policy which will meet the approval of the Australian people.

Returning to the matter before us: this bill provides a means to improve detection of explosives and deter the misuse of plastic explosives by terrorists by requiring more detection agent known as odorant to be incorporated in the manufacture of such explosives. It makes it an offence to manufacture, import, export, traffic in or possess plastic explosives which have not been marked with a detection agent such as described in the technical annex to the Montreal convention. The bill allows exemptions where the plastic explosives are manufactured or held in limited quantities for use in authorised research, development and testing of plastic explosives for forensic purposes and authorised training exercises, or when the explosives are destined to be incorporated in an authorised military use.

The bill also provides that existing stocks of unmarked plastic explosives may be used within three years from the date of the convention’s entry into force. That requires that unmarked plastic explosive manufactured and held for authorised defence purposes must be used, destroyed, marked or rendered permanently ineffective within 15 years of the date of the convention’s entry into force.

Labor supports the provisions of this bill, which bring Australia into conformity with the Montreal convention and with standards accepted by our major allies. To that extent, it helps strengthen our defences against the threat of terrorism, but we remain convinced that this government should be doing a great deal more to protect Australia against terrorism, particularly in the fields of aviation and maritime security, and that it should be doing these things much more quickly than it has managed so far. In this and so many other areas, Australia needs new leadership, new direction and new energy. Under a Rudd Labor government that is what we will get. Bring it on.

See this speech in context