Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

notes:

(a)

the Parliament’s and the Government’s abhorrence of suicide terrorism as a tool of any organisation or movement;

(b)

the global prevalence of suicide terrorism as the most lethal method of murder for many terrorist groups;

(c)

the critical roles that actors other than the perpetrators play in the process, providing incitement through:

(i)

education of youth;

(ii)

statements and encouragement by religious and political leaders; and

(iii)

inflammatory materials broadcast by media outlets and made available on Internet websites; and

(d)

the vital necessity of defining terrorism for the purpose of international criminal law, and particularly suicide terrorism; and

(e)

the benefits for international law enforcement and Australia’s national security in establishing such a multilateral enforcement framework; and

(2)

calls on the Government to:

(a)

promote initiatives for the drafting of an International Convention on Suicide Terrorism, which would:

(i)

provide a definition of suicide terrorism, including the meaning of the word ‘terrorism’; and

(ii)

create an offence of suicide terrorism; and

(b)

ensure that the content of such an offence would:

(i)

be defined as a ‘crime against humanity’, attracting universal jurisdiction and the international legal consequences associated with such status;

(ii)

include ‘direct and public incitement to commit suicide terrorism’ as a punishable offence by the same criteria as incitement under Article 3(c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention);

(iii)

be punishable against constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals in the same form as Article 4 of the Genocide Convention;

(iv)

include a provision requiring mandatory enactment of the offence in the domestic jurisdiction of contracting parties, in the same form as Article 5 of the Genocide Convention; and

(v)

exclude the defence of political crimes for the offence, in the same form as Article 7 of the Genocide Convention; and

(c)

commit to sponsoring a completed Convention, and actively promoting its adoption by the international community.

Can I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Dr Shimon Samuels, the Director for International Liaison of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre based in Paris.

This motion seeks to address a critical gap within the international legal framework to deal with suicide terrorism. The threat is distinct and immediate. Suicide terrorism attacks have sharply increased over the last two decades, from an average of three per year in the 1980s to 150 attacks in 2004. Indeed, new figures based on Iraq indicate one attack on average each and every day. These figures are startling and the associated fatality level is also appallingly high. Although representing just three per cent of overall terrorist events between 1980 and 2003, they have accounted for a massive 48 per cent of all deaths from suicide incidents. This makes them, effectively—to adopt a macabre figure—12 times deadlier or more effective than any other form of terrorism.

Suicide terrorism has therefore become the deadliest challenge in the global struggle against terrorism. And the struggle is truly global, with this particularly abhorrent form of violence being experienced across Europe, Africa, the Middle East and, increasingly, in our very own region. The carnage wreaked by both waves of bombings in Bali, for instance, was a clear message to Australians that we cannot simply leave this matter for others to fix; it is an enormous challenge that confronts us all. A coordinated international response is necessary, and an international convention would unquestionably enormously strengthen the international response.

It is most unsatisfactory that there remains uncertainty as to whether the act of suicide terrorism is covered under the crimes against humanity, and it is also unclear whether the act can be regarded as a war crime. Clearly there should be no ambiguity. It is also important that international and domestic law is framed to attack all vital components in the chain of responsibility. It is unacceptable that there is no international legal sanction for those who incite the perpetrators of suicide attacks.

A continuous and oppressive environment of indoctrination must be created before a human being will voluntarily kill themselves in order to kill innocent civilians. This indoctrination is done through a network of media, political and educational encouragement. The most obvious examples are already well known, with incitement to commit suicide terrorism by extremist leaders in Iran and encouragement to martyrdom in many educational resources for children across the Middle East, which I have actually seen.

The extent to which incitement is responsible for terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region is also a major concern for Australia. Indonesia’s most wanted terrorist, Noordin Mohammed Top, relied heavily on a network of fanatics who were alumni of the Jemaah Islamiah pesantrens, which are religious boarding schools, throughout Indonesia. A large proportion of the bombers, planners and organisers of the terrorist attacks on the Marriott Hotel, the Australian Embassy and the second attacks in Bali were lecturers, teachers or students of both of these schools.

Defining incitement as a crime of universal jurisdiction would force signatories to either prosecute or extradite the perpetrators. It would also add to the growing body of law that is slowly defining the overall crime of terrorism. Alongside the new convention on nuclear terrorism, a convention dealing with suicide terrorism would clarify definitional issues associated with the comprehensive convention against terrorism that is currently being negotiated at the United Nations—and I recently read an excellent speech, made to the United Nations General Assembly by my friend and colleague the member for Denison, promoting the cause of an international treaty against terrorism. This would be an important step—a building block, if you like—towards achieving that comprehensive treaty. I commend this motion to the House and urge the government to act on it as swiftly as possible.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the honourable member for Barton for raising this very important issue. I might not have exactly the same views as he does on every aspect of the motion but he has certainly highlighted a major world problem and, by raising this matter in the parliament, he helps us to think through the issues and hopefully look forward to appropriate responses.

Terrorism and the associated killing of innocent people is today a very real and disturbing issue. Unfortunately, the murder of unsuspecting bystanders as a means of achieving a political or religious goal is today so common that it could almost be regarded as the norm each week in the press and broadcast news services—and the member for Barton indicated the number of suicide bombings in the Middle East. Despite its growing commonness, terrorism as an instrument of ideological urging is nothing short of callous, cowardly and weak—and, I would argue, ineffective.

It seems clear that terrorism causes not only death and destruction but also, as its name suggests, terror. However, it is not difficult to argue that, in reality, it achieves nothing of substance. It generates worldwide animosity toward those who initiate such killings. It generates fear, creates social and economic instability and causes pain and suffering for the loved ones of the victims.

The subgroup of suicide terrorism is even more disturbing. This is an ideological platform whose presence has been greatly enhanced since September 11, 2001, in which an extreme version of suicide terrorism attack took place. The death of the suicide bomber himself or herself is the absolute final stage in a process that involves a number of people, from those who recruit future bombers through to educators, advisers, supporters and financiers. It regularly involves political or religious leaders and teachers who, unfortunately, also have the young and impressionable among their targets.

One website notes that suicide terrorism is seen to benefit the initiating organisation because such attacks generate widespread media coverage and this in turn ‘indicates a display of great determination and inclination for self-sacrifice on the part of the terrorists’. But I would add that this is of doubtful, even negative, benefit. The suggestion that widespread media coverage and notoriety generated by a suicide terrorist attack could somehow be an effective bargaining chip for the initiator to achieve specific goals is a strong indicator of how peculiar this particular form of terrorism is.

It seems unlikely that a forceful or strong-arm approach that demands that the world sit up and take notice would have the effect that terrorist organisations hope for and have convinced themselves that it would have. In fact, terrorism today certainly attracts the ire of most governments around the world, and most people do not want governments to deal with terrorists on the terrorists’ terms. Indiscriminate killing is not helpful in conveying the ideas of maturity, respect and cooperation, which are requirements at any negotiation table. Peaceful, sensible and mature negotiation is, in the long term, the most effective means of resolving a dispute and reaching the most acceptable solution for all concerned. Organisations and governments that support and promote suicide terrorism succeed only in alienating themselves from the global community and, in essence, alienating themselves from the very organisations and governments they wish to influence.

The Australian government is strongly outspoken against all forms of terrorism because the taking of innocent human life and the destruction of property in the pursuit of a self-centred goal is totally unacceptable. For this reason, the government has laws in place that clearly define a terrorist act and also make it illegal to be involved in terrorist activities. As I have said in the House on previous occasions, Australians are peace-loving people. Australia, on the whole, is a nation where all people are determined to live in harmony and are prepared to respect the views and beliefs of others. In general, we support the notion of a fair go for everyone. For these reasons, we strongly object to activities—and to those who carry them out—that will come between us and our reasonable objectives. Terrorist activity is an example of one such impediment. It has the potential to derail the good things that nations such as Australia stand for. Therefore, it is an offence in Australia to have any involvement at all in terrorism, to be involved in a terrorist act or to train for, prepare, plan, finance or otherwise support terrorist activities.

It is, in my view, unnecessary for Australia to draft its own international convention to rebuff and reject suicide terrorism, because a number of other documents are already in existence. It is important to remember that suicide terrorism is a subset of the overall terrorism movement. Terrorism is a stain on the world and it must be rejected. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this very important motion by the member for Barton. No matter what group and no matter what cause, suicide bombing as a means of protest, or as a method of getting an organisation’s message across to the wider populus, must be condemned by this parliament in the strongest possible terms. No matter how geographically far we are from individual occurrences of suicide terrorism, it not only instils fear in the minds of the general population but also affects the treatment and characterisation of members of communities from which the suicide bombers have come. No matter how one describes it, the act of suicide bombing is nothing but the deliberate targeting of innocent people in order to deliver a political message. No matter how groups try to rationalise their use of the technique of terror, no matter how they might try to defend their actions, suicide bombing is nothing short of a criminal act and should be declared a crime against humanity.

I acknowledge that it would be virtually impossible to stop a determined suicide bomber. No matter how stringent the checks put in place may be, a determined bomber could possibly get through the net with the express purpose of delivering his—or, on rare occasions, her—payload of death. Suicide terrorism may seem senseless and irrational to most of us, but to those leaders and groups, religious and political, who view this as a tool of their trade, it is a powerful weapon against whoever they consider to be their enemies. Suicide terrorism has increased.

Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, has collected data on acts of suicide terrorism. Between 1980 and 2004 there were 462 acts of suicide terrorism worldwide. Obviously, given the activities in Iraq of late, this number is now significantly higher. The data that he has collected indicates, contrary to popular opinion, that religious beliefs are not the principle driver of these attacks. For instance, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are the world’s leaders in suicide terrorism and, as every member of this parliament would appreciate, their motivation is not religion. Pape concludes that it is not religion but rather a desire to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from lands which the terrorists consider to be their homeland that is the primary motivator. One interesting aspect of these attacks which I would like to draw to the attention of the House is that, again contrary to popular belief, until the United States’ invasion of Iraq there had never been a suicide terrorist attack in the whole history of Iraq.

No matter the motivation, Australia must play a role in bringing this form of terrorism—and any other form, for that matter—to an end. The terms of the motion before the House are pretty straightforward. The motion calls on the Australian government to undertake simple actions that will clearly state the manner in which the international community views suicide attacks. While of itself the drafting and the adoption of an international convention on suicide terrorism will not bring an end to attacks, while it will not bring an end to the incitement of action on behalf of extremists, it will clarify the world’s condemnation of this form of terrorism. Enough time has passed and enough innocent lives have been lost for the world community to properly clarify the international standard by which suicide terrorists, and in particular their backers, will be judged.

The threat of suicide terrorism is more likely to grow rather than diminish. While Australia and most Western nations have yet to see this tactic of protest used on their own soil, that is no reason to dismiss the possibility. It was only a little over four years ago that we saw suicide bombing attacks in Bali targeting Western tourists. They resulted in the deaths of 202 people, including 88 Australians, and the injuring of more than 300 others. The Australian government owes it to those who lost their lives in Bali and owes it to the families of everyone who has suffered at the hands of suicide bombers to take every action possible to lead the charge of ridding the world of this threat of suicide terrorism. If the Australian government is to provide the leadership required to combat terrorism, this leadership has to extend beyond military action and it must address some of the fundamental issues that go to the heart of terrorist activity.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish I could say the member for Mitchell was right, but he is wrong. There are two key reasons why the member for Mitchell misunderstands what this motion by the member for Barton, Mr McClelland, is about. The first—and he shares this with a number of people on the government side—is he has no faith in and no fundamental commitment to the United Nations as an agency for binding together the varied nations of this earth to take concerted action.

Why is this asking for an international and binding convention? So that it can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague; not so that Australia, Britain, France or any other individual country would have to do the work on its own and have no International Criminal Court to seek to take these matters to. In relation to genocide in the Balkans, Milosevic was able to be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in The Hague and to be brought to justice because of the crimes in relation to genocide whilst he was in charge of his country and the crimes that he perpetrated.

It is a simple proposition. We live in a world that is composed not of individual countries that have no relationship to each other but of individual countries bound together in the United Nations. They can, if they sign up to an international convention, then try not just to outlaw but to take positive action against people who are associated, firstly, with genocide. That is how the international convention works in relation to that. Secondly, as the member for Barton and shadow minister for defence has argued, it is something novel, not historically but in terms of an international convention on suicide terrorism, that we should establish this in order to allow all the serried countries of the world to go to the International Criminal Court at The Hague and seek to prosecute not just the people who engage in suicide terrorism—if they are successful, they are dead—but the people who are supportive of them, those people involved with the education of youth or those religious and political leaders who make statements and give encouragement. We are dealing with the matter of inflammatory material broadcast by media outlets and made available on internet websites.

This motion goes not only to those people who aid and abet attempts at suicide terrorism but also to the key issue: so far, we do not have a single convention that focuses totally on suicide terrorism and these associated activities that allow it to happen. We cannot take a single head of state to task before the International Court of Justice in The Hague because we do not have a convention that would pin them to it. You can do that in relation to genocide but you cannot do it in relation to suicide terrorism. If you look specifically at what is proposed here, section 2(b)(iii) says:

... be punishable against constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals in the same form as Article 4 of the Genocide Convention

What the member for Mitchell misunderstands—and I am sure certain other members of the government would not misunderstand, including the chair of the defence committee—is that the series of conventions already in operation, which he iterated, from the early 1970s on were in response largely to single incidents or campaigns of terrorism. These go right back to suicide terrorists who had grabbed a plane and said: ‘Okay, we’ll take the plane. We’ve got all these people—we’ll hold them hostage.’ They either operated in airports or on planes. A lot of that went back to Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Most of those conventions were in relation to those individual attempts. This says there is a new category. We have seen that particularly in the last five years in Iraq, Palestine, Israel and elsewhere. We need a new mechanism to tie it together and to bring it to justice at the International Criminal Court.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to talk about a motion put forward by the member for Barton relating to suicide terrorism and its lethal nature. Not only has suicide terrorism become more prevalent, it is a senseless waste of innocent human life. Suicide terrorism, and indeed all forms of terrorism, is certainly something this government condemns. We are committed to playing our role in combating terrorism wherever it occurs in the world.

There are two parts to this motion. I support the first element, which is calling on the House to note the dreadful nature of suicide terrorism and its increase around the world. But I do have a problem, as other members on this side of the House have spoken about, with the second element. Let me explain the reasons for that for the benefit of the House. This government has developed a strong holistic legal framework to meet the new terrorism threats which have emerged since 9/11 and which focuses on deterring terrorists from Australia and apprehending terrorists and punishing the perpetrators of terrorism. The Criminal Code also makes it an offence to engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or otherwise support terrorist activities. The government has also defined a terrorist act in the Criminal Code Act—and the member for Mitchell outlined those words and I want to repeat them:

… an action or threat of action that causes serious physical harm or death to a person; or endangers a person’s life; or creates a serious risk to public health or safety; or causes serious damage to property; or seriously interferes with, disrupts or destroys 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 or a foreign government, or intimidating the public.

This definition has been supported by the Security Legislation Review Committee in its report of June this year. To further illustrate the government’s commitment to fighting terrorism, there are 13 international conventions on terrorism, of which Australia is signatory to 12. Currently, this government is also taking steps, as a matter of priority, to sign the treaty which relates to the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. That was a treaty discussed in Montreal as far back as 1991. We have also introduced legislation to parliament implementing the obligations under the convention on 7 September 2006. These international conventions cover all types of terrorist acts and behaviours and do not single out specific acts of terrorism like suicide.

Because suicide terrorism is extremely specific in its actual nature, defining it in legislation would set a precedent for motions like this to be brought forward in the future to define all specific acts of terrorism. In any event, the Criminal Code covers all conceivable acts of terrorism, and I believe that this is adequate. The more definitions described in legislation, the easier it will become for new acts of terrorism—ones that we have never seen or even thought of before—to fall outside the definition in the legislation.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.