Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Given that it is, we will see an increasing number of facilities for nuclear power—particularly in Australia. When countries in Europe, such as France or England, are allowing many mainstream facilities within suburban areas, the prospects and the potential for terrorism will increase. They have increased in Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom. I feel that in Australia today, whether you look at the views of any prominent scientist or environmentalist, the argument for nuclear power and facilities is increasing. The momentum is increasing, and we will see more facilities in Australia in urban areas and in other appropriate areas. I do think that is only a matter of time.

Of course, that means that the prospect for these sorts of illegitimate acts will increase. It is definitely there today in a country like France, where there are dozens and dozens of nuclear power plants. We know that 70 per cent of the UK's power is generated from nuclear sources—allowing for more of this activity to be focused around key targets, and seductive targets, like nuclear facilities. Even in Sydney, this sort of thing has been an issue over the past five years that I have been observing this. Sometimes on the front page of the Daily Telegraph you will see a report about the Lucas Heights facility being an attractive terrorist target—problematically highlighting something that is a legitimate concern to people but also reinforcing to those people who may seek to engage in these acts that there is a target.

This is an important debate, considering that, as a society, we will increasingly be looking at nuclear as a solution to our energy generation and medical problems. The provisions in this bill are legitimate in the sense that they exempt the Australian defence forces from activities on the battlefield and do not involve any legitimate use of the defence forces in areas where they may have responsibility for nuclear materials. The conventions and the criminal offences are substantial and useful in terms of us making a case about the United Nations convention being a valuable mechanism, and the penalty of 20 years is a legitimate penalty.

It is also important to note that there are countries pursuing nuclear technology for the purposes of employing nuclear weapons, including countries such as Iran, most notably in recent times. The member for Cook spoke about the recent United Nations Security Council resolution that was not supported by China and Russia. One of the disappointing features of that was that Syria was seeking to supply Iran with low-grade nuclear spent fuel and other mechanisms to help them develop nuclear weapons—which of course is the other side of the nuclear terrorism debate. There are also nation states, particularly totalitarian regimes, that seek to develop nuclear weapons for the purposes of nuclear terrorism employed by the state and not by an isolated group seeking to cause terrorism in our country.

This is appropriate legislation. This bill will be helpful to law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies. It is a reactive mechanism but it is important to note in law that it is an offence to do these things. I do not see many instances of people being charged with the lawful possession of radioactive materials or other things. If we ever get a situation where someone is prosecuted for this, we have a much broader problem. I continue to support the government's efforts to proactively give intelligence and law enforcement agencies powers to find people who seek to do evil things and to prevent them from doing so. This is a worthwhile United Nations convention. The United States and Russia are to be commended for developing it, and it is a worthwhile bill for this parliament to adopt.

See this speech in context