Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also at the outset thank the member for Mackellar for moving this motion. Having listened to other speakers, I think everyone has begun in that way—it's probably the greatest outbreak of fondness and love for the member Mackellar I've ever heard in the chamber! That's a thing to note.

It was just over 70 years ago that the four Geneva conventions were opened for signature and, today, as has been said, they've been ratified by 196 states, including all United Nations member states now and both UN observers—the Holy See and the State of Palestine. The four conventions established critical international norms, if you like, which have now over time assumed the force of customary international law. They apply in times of armed conflict. Of the four conventions, the first deals with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces in the field; the second deals with the treatment of wounded and sick shipwrecked seamen; the third provides standards for the treatment of prisoners of war; and the fourth relates to how armed forces must treat civilians in times of war.

Previous speakers have outlined the history of the conventions from the 1860s and thereafter, but the anniversary is a time to reflect upon the state of the world and the importance of the conventions in modern international humanitarian law. People like me—and, indeed, most people in Australia—have lived their entire lives in a world with these norms. It's easy to forget that and take them for granted. It's as if they have always existed, that you should provide some care for prisoners of war, that you shouldn't rape civilians as part of armed conflict—that there are some international norms which human society has said are outside even the bounds of what is acceptable in times of armed conflict.

But from the perspective of history, these four conventions and the three additional protocols are anomalous. They're ahistorical. For most of human history, for recorded and prehistory times of armed conflict, there were no rules, or at least very few. Perhaps we've seen a horrific glimpse of this recently in the brutal, anarchic reality with ISIS, using rape, murder of civilians, coprophagia and the like as tools of war. The member for Fisher gave a powerful anecdote before. We were both in Serbia a few weeks ago representing the parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Hearing parliamentarians from conflict spheres talk of their experiences does mark you and stay with you. Precursors to the current conventions, although they've been outlined, never held the same legal universality, political acceptance or moral force that the current conventions do and have done for over 70 years. It was in the International Court of Justice's nuclear weapons and Nicaragua cases that it was found that the provisions of the Geneva conventions are now so universally accepted that they have the status of customary international law. The principles enshrined in the conventions should now be recognised as pre-emptory, because they're so fundamental to the maintenance of the international order that no derogation is permitted.

While the conventions may be universal in their application, they're not universally respected or valued. Their very survival cannot be taken for granted. I think all members here would regard them as international norms worth fighting for, speaking up for and defending, and precious instruments of our international legal architecture. I'll read a quote from a brilliant and provocative speech that Paul Keating made only last week. He said:

The international system is fundamentally anarchic in structure. Two world wars in a century and Vietnam, Iraq, Syria gives the evidence of that. We should not confuse the relative peace of the last 30 years with the anarchy which lies latent.

That's something that, sadly, I believe. And, given this fundamentally anarchic environment and our increasingly multipolar and rapidly changing world, those who value the civilising norms of the conventions have to work with like-minded countries to ensure that these important principles are protected for future generations. There's nothing inevitable about these conventions being there in 100 years if the world changes. They are ahistorical.

An important part of this work, then, is advocacy: speaking up in international fora and in nations. The public and institutional knowledge of these conventions and principles can guard against authoritarianism and the worst of humanity. In that context, this debate is important. It is a good private member's motion. It's a good thing that member after member in the Australian parliament stand up and pledge their support for the principles of the convention. There is a bit of repetition, but in this instance there's nothing wrong with repetition. The International and Australian Red Cross, of course, are a critical part of that international architecture. I pay tribute to their work to respond to humanitarian needs in times of emergency and warfare and to promote respect for international humanitarian law. The Red Cross were of course founded in 1863 in Geneva on the back of the first Geneva conventions, because it was recognised that a permanent relief agency was needed for humanitarian aid in war.

In closing, Australia can and should be a leader in international affairs and ensure that we give voice to our values. I thank the member for Mackellar for bringing this debate to the House.

See this speech in context