Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The coalition supports the purpose of this bill which is to implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The fact that we need to have this bill is a symbol of the age in which we live where terrorism remains an ever-present threat. That threat occurs from outside the country and, sadly, the threat of home-grown terrorism also exists, and we have seen that in spectacular ways. We have also seen the successes of our security agencies in tackling those threats in recent times. We should never forget that over the last decade many Australians have already lost their lives to terrorist atrocities. The previous coalition government recognised this and we presided over an unprecedented expansion of Australia's capabilities to combat terrorism.

It is very clear to me that, when the Labor Party came to power, they saw this unprecedented expansion of resources and capacity as an over-allocation to the security agencies. They have systematically undermined those agencies and they have systematically decreased the resourcing that is available to them whilst, at the same time, increased their levels of responsibility in a way that will ultimately jeopardise our national security. What these deliberate cuts mean is that our security agencies are being asked to do more with less. The pressures on the security agencies manifest themselves in various ways.

In the most recent budget Labor deliberately again weakened our national security by cutting away $12 million from the National Counter-Terrorism Committee. They also cut $1.4 million from the Australian Federal Police counterterrorism operations. As we know, the most important single weapon in the fight against terrorism is information. Unfortunately through these budget cuts the Gillard Labor government undermined the effectiveness of the Australian counterterrorism effort by thwarting the ability to collect information. We are gravely concerned about the cutbacks to the AFP's counterterrorism program. If this Labor government were serious about preventing terrorism, they would need to commit to appropriately fund the Australian Federal Police's counterterrorism and intelligence programs.

In contrast, the former coalition government provided over $10.4 billion of funding from September 2001 up to the 2010-11 budget to enhance Australia's national security and counterterrorism programs by increasing the capacity of our intelligence agencies. The former Howard government gave ASIO and the AFP significantly more resources and legislative teeth to stay ahead of terrorists and stop them before they acted. The coalition strongly supports our national security and law enforcement agencies and believes they should be resourced appropriately in order to fight this terrible crime. I want to turn to some of the broader cuts beyond the cuts to the intelligence agencies that have occurred to our national security agencies under this Labor government. It really is a litany of shame, and I believe that it is clearly an indicator of Labor's intention when they came to office to stop what they saw as the overallocation of resources to our security apparatus. They have deliberately set out to do this since 2007. Here are just some examples of where they have done this. They have cut $17 million from the air marshals program, which effectively ends the air marshals program. They have cut Australian Federal Police numbers at Darwin and Canberra. They have cut aerial surveillance, unbelievably, as they have presided over the collapse of our orderly border protection system.

They have savaged Customs at every budget, including cutting an enormous sum out of the ability of Customs to screen people as they come over the border as well as to screen cargo as it comes over the border. In the 2009-10 budget, for instance, Labor cut $58.1 million from the ability of Customs to screen cargo when it comes into Australia. What this means, of course, is that the ability for criminals to bring in contraband, and the ability of terrorists to bring in things as well, is enhanced by the fact that Customs is so dramatically under-resourced under this government. The rate at which cargo is screened has dropped dramatically—25 per cent in the case of sea cargo inspections. Astonishingly, there has been a 75 per cent cut in the ability of Customs to inspect baggage as it comes in through our airports. That is an astonishingly large opportunity and opening for criminals, and in the same vein it is an astonishingly large opening for people who might want to bring in weapons or even more diabolical things through our airports, because Customs just do not have the resources they need to do their job properly. Labor have also savaged Customs staffing numbers. Ninety staff were cut from Customs, on top of the cut of 250 that we saw in the 2010-11 budget. They have cut $9.3 million from Customs, apparently in a plan to reduce capital spending. Passenger facilitation, as I mentioned earlier, has had $34 million cut out of it. That means that passengers waiting at Australia's eight international airports wait for longer, and it also reduces Customs' ability to spot threats as they come into the country. Finally, this year's MYEFO estimated that $35 million will be cut from Customs over the forward estimates.

That is just Customs and Border Protection, but all of our national security agencies have been similarly hammered by this government. ASIO had $8.8 million cut from training and liaison. The government also cut almost $7 million worth of ASIO security checks for visa applicants. A sum of $12.1 million was cut over four years for 'operational efficiencies'—which of course is just a euphemism for cutting money—from AUSTRAC, which of course is an agency that is vital in fighting crime, and fighting terrorism in particular, because it tracks the flow of money, which is vitally important to stop these sorts of activities.

I think it is very clear that these cuts represent a very deliberate policy from the Gillard and Rudd Labor governments to stop what they saw as the overallocation of resources to national security. We are very concerned about it. The fact that the budget is in such a perilous situation means that it is going to be difficult for us to reverse that, but we have committed to funding all of those agencies properly. In my own portfolio in particular, we have made specific commitments to reverse some of the cuts that the Labor Party have made to Customs and Border Protection, and that will be vital if we are to go back to a situation where our borders are properly secured in terms of both who comes into this country and what comes into this country.

I turn to the substance of the bill that we are debating. I appreciate that I have been given broad latitude to talk about terrorism in general, whereas this bill really deals with something that is relatively simple in the fight against international terrorism—that is, the ratification by Australia of an international treaty that deals with nuclear terrorist threats. When we think of terrorism, the prospect of nuclear terrorism is possibly one of the most disturbing scenarios that could be imagined by people who are envisaging threats to the Western world and to Australia in particular. Clearly, with the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the ability of terrorists to access nuclear materials was enhanced, and the international community admirably responded with this international treaty that we are discussing in the Australian parliament today. The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee commenced work on the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in 1998. This was born against the backdrop of the postwar discussions I mentioned and the international community being aware of the alarming scenario of nuclear material or nuclear weapons being able to fall into the hands of terrorists. The only existing international convention at the time on nuclear matters was limited to nuclear material used for peaceful purposes and did not deal with nuclear material for military purposes. The United Nations Convention on Nuclear Terrorism was adopted by the general assembly in April 2005 and was opened for signature in September that year. The convention is a multilateral treaty open to ratification by all nations and is designed to criminalise acts of nuclear terrorism and promote judicial and police cooperation in order to prevent, investigate and penalise those acts. The convention includes a wide range of acts and potential targets, which include nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors. It covers threats and attempts to commit such crimes or to participate in them and instructs that offenders will either be extradited or prosecuted. The convention also encourages states to assist each other with criminal investigations and extradition proceedings and by sharing information to prevent terrorist attacks. This bill seeks to implement Australia's obligations under that convention.

As outlined in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the amendments create new criminal offences for possessing or making radioactive material, nuclear explosive devices or a device to emit material with radiological properties which may cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment; using or damaging a convention prescribed device or a nuclear device or threatening to do so; threatening to use radioactive material; or demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention prescribed device or a nuclear facility. Finally, it creates an offence for demanding another person to allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility.

Notably—and I think very importantly—members of the Australian Defence Force will not be liable for prosecution when acting in connection with the defence or security of Australia. The convention does not govern the actions of armed forces during an armed conflict. The exemption does not apply to serving personnel whose actions are not connected with the defence or security of Australia or who have otherwise been acting unlawfully.

It should be noted that the bill does not criminalise the unlawful possession and use of radioactive material—for example, material with a medical application. There must also be an intention to use or make available this material for a prohibited purpose such as death or property damage. Whether or not the intended outcome occurs is not relevant to the prosecution. It also stipulates that a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment applies to the offences created under the bill.

We obviously support, as a coalition and as an opposition, the objective of this bill to implement the United Nations convention. The convention is an important instrument in the international efforts to combat terrorism and the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. We agree that ratifying the convention will send a very strong message to the international community that Australia remains committed to addressing the threat of terrorism. I think there would be very few members of parliament who would object to us ratifying this treaty. In many ways I think that this is the easy end of combating terrorism. The harder end is when it comes to the allocation of scarce resources and when there is a lot of competing pressures on those resources. Clearly, when it comes to those sorts of judgments, this Labor government have been left wanting by the cuts they have made to our national security apparatus, specifically by the cuts they have made against our counterterrorism abilities. I will call on them, in voicing the opposition's support for this particular measure, to look at reversing those cuts. It is something we will certainly do when we are in government.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The member for Stirling, who spoke prior to me, raised a number of specific cases with respect to funding allocations for national security and safety. I am certainly not in a position to respond to those comments individually, but I am sure that most of those allegations will be rejected by the minister. In the time that I have been in this place, this government has been absolutely committed to national security and national safety. The government has introduced a number of measures that reflect its commitment in this area. The member for Stirling spent most of his time attacking the government's funding of national security. Again, I have no doubt that the minister will respond to those allegations.

I make the observation, however, that good government is about reflecting the needs of the time. When circumstances change it is not unusual and not irresponsible for the government to change direction in how it manages its affairs. The reality is that if you look at the record of activities that the security organisations of this country have been engaged in, at the record of arrests that have been made and at the general level of safety throughout the country in recent years, you see that those organisations have performed exceptionally well. This government has now been in office for four years. We do not see the security breaches that we might have seen if the system and the various organisations were not working well. So, quite frankly, whilst the member for Stirling came in and attacked the government's record, I think it is a very proud record, which speaks for itself in terms of this government's commitment and its runs on the board in relation to security around Australia.

As other speakers have said, the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill implements the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Minister O'Connor, in introducing the bill in November last year, stated:

The bill creates new offences for specific conduct that is prohibited by the convention.

This includes:

The offences will not be limited to conduct by Australians and in Australia, but will apply in a broad range of situations where the convention requires states parties to assert jurisdiction.

It seems to me that this bill in fact completes part of the process of adhering to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. That convention was concluded in New York on 14 April 2005. The process, however, began nearly a decade earlier, when the United Nations General Assembly established an ad hoc committee through resolution 51/210 on 17 December 1996. It certainly was a lengthy process. Ultimately I can understand the difficulties that might have been encountered by the United Nations in trying to get the convention agreed to by as many countries as possible. It was ultimately signed off on 14 April 2005.

The convention establishes an international framework for criminalising specific conduct relating to nuclear material and other radioactive substances or devices. Australia signed the convention on 14 September 2005, as I understand did several other countries. The convention entered into force generally on 7 July 2007. Of the 115 signatories to the convention, to date 54 have ratified the convention and a further 23 countries have subsequently acceded to it. Australia's ratification of the convention will contribute to international efforts aimed at countering terrorism involving the use of radioactive material. It will ensure that persons who commit such acts can be brought to justice irrespective of the territory in which they are found and whether or not extradition agreements are in place.

The convention provides a framework for international cooperation in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and extradition of persons who commit relevant offences with nuclear material and other radioactive substances or devices. The convention is an important tool in the international fight against terrorism and the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Regrettably, the threat of terrorism has become a fact of life around the world. It is not a new phenomenon. Terrorist acts date back many centuries. The word was originally derived from the French equivalent, which dates back to the reign of terror that followed the French Revolution. In recent decades, however, we have seen widespread acts of terrorism around the world. Most notably for Australians we all remember September 11, 2001, and particularly the Bali bombings of 12 October 2002 when 88 Australians lost their lives along with almost another 120 people—and many others were badly injured. It has changed the way we live, how we do business and even where we may choose to live or visit. The changes we have seen in the operations at airports is a prime example of this. Most importantly, it has added immense financial costs and time to the way we live.

The costs associated with counterterrorist strategies will continue to escalate as new technology creates opportunity not only for good purposes but also for evil purposes. Whilst this bill seeks to strengthen our efforts to counter terrorism, the reality is that countering terrorism will be an ongoing challenge for governments around the world. Again, as this bill very much reflects, it is an international problem and it does require international cooperation if we are going to have any reasonable degree of success in countering the terrorist activities of those who want to engage in them.

Terrorism is not only a product of conflict between two parties, as we quite often imagine, or between two different organisational structures. It is also often a product of a single, crazed person driven by an obsession or by fanaticism. We saw that only last July when 77 young people were killed in Norway as a result of the actions of a person who was clearly deranged and probably still is based on the latest reports I have read about his appearance in the Norwegian courts only recently. So terrorism comes in many forms. That is what makes it so difficult and costly to counter. But every action we take closes another opportunity for terrorism.

The observation I would make about this legislation is that it relates to nuclear terrorism. The word 'nuclear' is synonymous with 'fear' because of the magnitude of the destruction it can cause. It is a valid fear from what we have seen of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from nuclear disasters in Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima. So it is understandable that when you mention the word 'nuclear' or 'uranium' people have some real concerns. The ongoing debates about the ability of countries to enrich uranium, who we sell it to, what it can be used for and how it is to be stored highlights just how sensitive an issue it is.

The other observation I would make with respect to the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, which this bill seeks to ratify, is that it is an international convention. As I said a moment ago, if we are going to fight terrorism on an international scale we are going to need international cooperation. The convention, as I have pointed out, has been signed by only 115 countries, which means that there are more countries in the world who have not signed it and are not party to the convention than are. That, in my mind, is of real concern because, as we all know, terrorism crosses borders and international boundaries. If a country does not sign the convention you have to immediately ask the question: why not? Why would you not sign something which to 115 countries appears quite reasonable? It is something which took nearly a decade to negotiate in order to ensure it was reasonable, and yet some countries still refuse to sign it. That is of real concern, because our best strategy in fighting terrorism is to have everyone around the world in unison in terms of the way we approach the challenge.

The last thing I want to say is that this bill does in fact strengthen Australia's case when we are endeavouring to encourage other countries in our region to ratify various other counterterrorism instruments. An upcoming opportunity to encourage our neighbours will be the Nuclear Security Summit, which I understand will take place in the Republic of Korea in March this year. Again this is case where, if we are going to encourage others to do the right thing, we have to lead by example. I know we have done that by signing the convention. Particular aspects of this legislation conclude some parts of the convention that we have not yet put into place, and this will certainly enable us as a country and as a government to say to others: 'We are playing our part. We are prepared to be cooperative in an international framework. You should do the same.' I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Last year, the British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told the Washington Council on Foreign Relations that in the fight against extremism:

Success will depend on balancing the near and long term objectives. Repeated tactical success will not of itself assure us of strategic victory. We must extend the rule of law; address the ideological challenge; harness and not be harmed by technology; and preserve our borders in what will surely remain a period of instability.

The Home Secretary's prescription is a very good one. It is one we should share, and I believe we do. Despite the benefits of technology, there are those who would seek to manipulate science and use it against their fellow human beings for their own nefarious and evil purposes. Radical extremists have vowed to go to any lengths in the name of their cause. That includes unleashing biological or nuclear weapons. Amongst them, al-Qaeda and the North Caucasus terror groups have made no secret of the fact that they desire nuclear weapons and have attempted to acquire them. There is evidence that prior to September 11 al-Qaeda operatives cased American nuclear reactor facilities but ruled out sabotage because of the tight security and reinforced fences at those sites.

A decade on, security experts warn that nuclear terrorism remains a real and urgent threat. As more countries embark on their own nuclear programs, this issue must be managed with a watchful eye both at home and abroad. Nuclear material that could be used for weaponry is not inaccessible. Nearly 2,000 metric tonnes of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium separated from spent fuel is stockpiled across the world. It exists in hundreds of buildings and bunkers across more than 30 countries. A quarter of those nations are plagued by corruption and political and financial instability, posing grave concerns over the security of their nuclear reserves. Twenty cases of theft or loss of this material have been recorded by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Other cases have gone unreported. Additional supplies that could be used to make a dirty bomb, like radiological materials used in medicine, can be found at countless other sites.

We do not live our lives in fear, nor do we close our eyes to the world around us. It is critical to be aware of the threats and challenges that face this nation and our allies on the global stage. This bill goes to the heart of the rationale that aims to prevent us from being surprised by the unanticipated and the unimaginable. Last year, researchers from Russia and the United States, two of the world's major nuclear powers, issued a joint assessment warning of the persistent dangers of nuclear terrorism. The joint threat assessment on nuclear terrorism was the product of a year-long partnership between leading authorities on nuclear security from Harvard's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs and the Moscow Institute for US and Canadian studies. The report concludes:

If current approaches toward eliminating the threat are not replaced with a sense of urgency and resolve, the question will become not if but when, and on what scale, the first act of nuclear terrorism occurs.

It named complacency as the primary obstacle to nuclear security. A nuclear attack could take a range of forms. Nuclear weapons could be stolen or acquired on the black market. Perhaps more easily, a crude improvised device or a dirty bomb could be made from stolen materials like uranium or plutonium from spent fuel reserves for civilian research reactors. These scenarios, this study warns, are distressingly plausible.

Sabotaging a nuclear facility is another possibility. I say this as the member for Cook, where the ANSTO facility is in very close proximity to my own residence and those of the neighbouring electorate of Hughes. Thirty countries run reactors that could be potential targets. The report made the point that, whilst Fukushima and Chernobyl were terrible accidents, that same devastation could be triggered by premeditated action.

This report is very grim reading but in order to pre-empt disaster we must consider the worst-case scenarios. To have to contemplate these things is horrific but we do so with the hope that they may never eventuate any further than the dark realms of evil imagination. The assessment argues that, given the potential catastrophic consequences, even a small probability of terrorists getting and detonating a nuclear bomb is enough to justify urgent action to reduce risk. This can be done through tightening the security surrounding nuclear weapons, materials and facilities and expanding intelligence and police operations to foil smuggling and terror plots.

The bill before us today is a vital amendment that moves towards these ends, strengthening the deterrent measures and scope for prosecuting these offences. The convention was a global initiative started by Russia and the United States in 2006. Our Commonwealth legislation already incorporates many of the obligations of the convention. But this bill is important in ensuring that all criminal offences are covered. This amendment will make it a criminal offence to possess, make or use radioactive material or a nuclear emitting or explosive device that can cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; or to threaten to use radioactive material or demand another person create or use such a device or facility.

This bill does not criminalise the lawful use or possession of radioactive material in fields like medicine, but it does allow stronger prosecution when there is intent to use or make that material available for a prohibited purpose. Whether or not the intended outcome is carried out is irrelevant to the prosecution. These new offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years jail.

Experts say the nuclear material required for an improvised bomb is small and hard to detect, making it difficult to recover once stolen. For that reason the US-Russia joint threat assessment ruled that the primary focus in reducing risk must be to keep nuclear material and nuclear weapons from being stolen by continually improving our security measures.

This stronger legislation is a critical part of that process. The nuclear terrorism convention does not govern the actions of armed forces during conflicts, so members of the Australian Defence Force could not be prosecuted when acting in connection with national defence or security, as is appropriate.

The sobering reality is that it would be plausible for a terror group with technical expertise to make and detonate a crude nuclear bomb if it could acquire the right materials. We need to ensure that that does not happen. These laws today help to serve that purpose.

While we take the measures proposed in this bill and are supportive it is important to remind ourselves of the other dimensions of our task. Last year we commemorated the 10th anniversary of September 11, a cataclysm that shook our world to its very foundations. We have recovered but we will never forget. We have supported our allies in their time of great need and joined the fight and have been the direct victims of terrorist activities ourselves, most notably in Bali. We have drawn strength from the resilience of those who we have stood by—their determination and above all their further commitment to the defence of the democratic values we share. That practical support continues to this day at the cost of Australian lives.

Home-grown terrorism is one of the principal threats facing the United States and the United Kingdom today. In Australia we have been well served by an immigration program that has mitigated these threats more so than most nations, but we must remain vigilant. Australia's immigration program was designed with stringent security tests and character provisions in a bid to safeguard our people and our values. We have sought to consolidate and uphold these provisions as time has passed and contexts have changed. But there is an ever-present need to be watchful. To maintain the integrity of our immigration system we need to adopt a risk based approach to our borders and ensure that our scarce resources are well focused on targeting the threat. The Gillard government's failed border protection policies have compromised these resources and undermined the ability of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to undertake this core task, which is to maintain the integrity of our immigration program.

We must also remember that the friend of home-grown terrorism is cultural exclusion and disengagement. We must have an expectation of participation and engagement with respect to all who live in our society, and society must encourage that participation. In fact, we should insist upon it. We cannot allow a segregationist agenda to take hold under the banner of cultural tolerance. Cultural diversity is an asset for any nation that chooses to embrace it within the framework of shared values, strong borders, the rule of the law and robust institutions. By contrast, cultural division is a curse on any society and is the recruiting ground for extremism and home-grown terrorism.

The US-Russia report reminds us that nuclear terrorism should also be considered within a policy framework of the broader phenomenon of terrorism and extremism. The authors note that Al-Qaeda and other groups draw motivation for the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction from the belief that escalating the conflict by inflicting mass casualties is necessary to win a perceived clash of civilisations between Islam and the West.

We must be very wary of allowing state sponsors of radicalism and extremism to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been significantly undermined by North Korea, the first nation to withdraw from the treaty and test nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council has passed five legally binding resolutions, demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program, to no effect.

The 2010 report to congress, by the Director of National Intelligence, made the assessment:

Iran probably has the capability to produce some biological warfare agents … for offensive purposes, if it made the decision to do so.

The Middle East and North Africa continue to experience a time of great upheaval. It is an opportunity for renewal, but there is a lurking danger in their present vulnerability.

This is a volatile time—the fall of the Tunisian regime, in January; the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, in February; the death of Gaddafi in Libya; and months of rebel uprisings, airstrikes, bloodshed, protests and violence which gripped Bahrain, Morocco and Algeria. Syria has been suspended from the Arab League, caught in a cycle of violence, as it hurtles down the road to civil war. In the chaos, evil can prosper and our enemies can prevail. We must be ever watchful. The joint threat assessment noted that, whilst al-Qaeda has been drastically disrupted since 2001, there remain very few operatives who would have the skills to organise or orchestrate a nuclear attack. Collaboration with other extremist groups or networks is not out of the question.

There is a chance for these nations to cement fundamental human rights in the societies they rebuild. We cling to the hope that, when the dust settles, a new era can emerge where religious expression and difference is celebrated, not condemned, and the voices of all are heard and valued. However, the experience of the Copts in today's Egypt is not a good omen. Religious extremism, intolerance and hate must not be allowed to fill the vacuum under the guise of superficial democracy where it will consume, destroy and surely spread. We should be careful not to embrace these new regimes and be too eager to appease, as the language of some world leaders could be interpreted, particularly towards the Muslim brotherhood. These regimes could prove to be even more dangerous than the ones they replace, both to their own citizens, to the way of life we in this nation value, to our own nation and its security and those of our allies. We must remain eternally vigilant. The light in our watchtower must never go out.

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

I also seek to speak on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill will make essential amendments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 in order to implement Australia's obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism of 2005. The convention aims at establishing an international framework for cooperation for the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and extradition of persons in breach, of offences relating to radioactive or nuclear weapons. While the convention has an international element to it, it requires signatory countries to that convention to address their domestic laws to ensure that they are complementary to those provided within the convention itself. That is essentially what we are doing through this bill.

Australia, as we have heard from previous speakers, has already enacted substantial elements of law set out in the convention within the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987. This bill will fill the gaps to ensure that our legal requirements under the convention and its framework are fully met and, as part of the international organisation of various nations who are signatories to the convention, ensure that our laws are contemporary in that respect.

It is also important, given the role of Australia in terms of our region, that we show leadership on this matter. Complying with the obligations set out in the nuclear terrorism convention will allow us to lead by example within our region, ensuring that other regional neighbours witness our commitment to take steps to comply with the convention and, in doing so, ensure that we have a very strong legal regime set to combat issues of terrorism generally.

New offences will emerge as a consequence of the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill. It will create new offences with respect to possessing, making, using, damaging; threatening a nuclear facility; or a person being forced to use or develop radioactive material for the purposes of weaponry. To put this in context, this is not something where you need an abundance of nuclear physicists and a 20-year lead-up time to develop a nuclear device—as we would generally know it, an atomic bomb. We have the ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights, which is in my neighbouring electorate of Hughes, and we are also fast approaching a debate in this chamber concerning a nuclear waste facility, at a location yet to be determined. There is also our reliance on nuclear medicines for our health. All have a capability of having products used to develop such weapons, for use in terrorism.

As to these new offences, the penalty imposed is up to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment. The application of these laws will apply where an offence is committed within Australia by an Australian citizen or against an Australian citizen, our property or indeed a facility itself. The offence will therefore potentially involve foreigners acting against an Australian citizen or within Australia. As a result, the Extradition Act 1988 will also be amended to prevent a suspect offender from avoiding extradition from Australia by arguing that the offence was of a political nature.

As I indicated, in terms of choice of words, in terms of weaponry, it is not the wholesale production of a nuclear instrument that this legislation is aimed at. Indeed, it would cover that, but that is not its principal target. In the modern age, the prospect of having a dirty nuclear device, which is primarily associated with the disbursement of radioactive material, is something that, whilst very frightening, is very real. It is those devices that are in the forefront of the minds of our security agencies.

In supporting this raft of amendments, we need only look back to September 11. The common view is that it changed the face of the world, and indeed it did. In this place itself, whilst we were not a target in respect of that dreadful attack in the United States, we saw the potential of what it would mean to a country like ours. We enacted various pieces of legislation which some of the critics of this government and of the former government would deride by referring to it as draconian legislation. We took every step possible to ensure that Australia is fully protected against the advent of a terrorism attack. This is another step to ensure that we not only are vigilant but also have in place the tools necessary for those people that we put on the front line, who are out there to protect our community, to ensure that they can properly investigate, prosecute and bring to justice people who would otherwise be free to do what they will in terms of some terrorist ideal in our community.

Clearly I support the provisions outlined in this amendment but, in doing so, I also have regard for all those officers who are working in our law enforcement and security services to protect this nation against the advent of terrorism. It is a long bow to suggest that we have not been a target simply because we have been lucky. I think the reality is that it is because this nation has been vigilant and has not taken things for granted. We will withstand the criticism about deploying draconian legislation, but I think I speak in respect of the parliament generally that all sides will do whatever is necessary to protect our citizenry from terrorist acts.

I commend this piece of legislation to the House. I know it will not be the last in terms of fighting terrorism. Terrorism is something that will push the envelope of our understanding. Simply being able to block it in one aspect does not mean that it will not re-emerge elsewhere. As I say, I have nothing but praise for our people in our respective law enforcement organisations and our security organisations who commit their lives to the protection of this country, and I feel quite humble whenever I am in their presence. I commend the legislation.

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

I rise today to support the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The bill seeks to add new offences to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 by implementing our obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

I want to record my occasional criticisms of the United Nations conventions and other elements that do not function so well. This of course is a worthwhile initiative of the United Nations, the United States and Russia in supporting nuclear nonproliferation and ensuring that we deal with the very modern challenges of terrorism, particularly in the nuclear domain. It affords me the opportunity to make some remarks on my ongoing interest in matters nuclear: nuclear energy, nuclear waste and how we deal with that and, of course, nuclear terrorism. It is important for us to reflect that in an era when much of our culture deals with matters of nuclear terrorism, whether it be in literature—the latest book I am reading by Tom Clancy, Dead or Alive, deals with a group of terrorists undertaking a nuclear plot in the United States—or whether it be on television shows such as 24 or other programs dealing with the prospect of nuclear terrorism, this cultural reflection is really a snapshot of what people are thinking about and concerned about in today's world.

Following 9/11 something that was previously completely unimaginable became imaginable. And we now know that there are people in our world today who are seeking to do these evil things, including to turn what is a fantastic development in human achievement, science and progress—the splitting of the atom—into something that is negative for humanity.

It is important that we create these categories of offence in Australian law so that we can help to prevent these sorts of acts. Law is one tool, and law enforcement agencies do need these laws to deal with these sorts of crimes. However, if we ever get to the point where these offences are enacted we will have failed. Our law enforcement, terrorism, intelligence and other agencies are at the forefront of fighting people seeking to do these very evil things, and it is very important that we ensure the adequacy of the law in prevention and in enabling these agencies to seek out and prevent these acts before we ever get to the point where we may have to deal with something under the provisions of the bill before us today.

However, it would be remiss of me to talk up the doom and gloom about nuclear problems—considering that we do have a facility in Sydney at Lucas Heights, which is a fantastic achievement in nuclear medicine, and that we are proposing to put a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory—without dealing with some of the pertinent comments from around the world about nuclear energy and its benefits. Looking at what has happened at Fukushima and the scepticism that has come forward about nuclear power generation, it is pertinent to quote just a few things that deal with some of the matters in this bill and, indeed, the general debate about nuclear power today.

I had a quick look at some top environmentalists and other people who are concerned about nuclear power. Even very senior levels of people who have had a view about the nuclear technology suite, whether it be in power generation or other mechanisms, have come to the view that they formed the view wrongly and prematurely. For example, I want to quote Stephen Tindale, who ran Greenpeace for five years until 2005:

My position was necessarily that nuclear power was wrong, partly for the pollution and nuclear waste reasons but primarily because of the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons. My change of mind wasn’t sudden, but gradual over the past four years. But the key moment when I thought that we needed to be extremely serious was when it was reported that the permafrost in Siberia was melting massively, giving up methane, which is a very serious problem for the world. It was kind of like a religious conversion. Being anti-nuclear was an essential part of being an environmentalist for a long time but now that I’m talking to a number of environmentalists about this, it’s actually quite widespread this view that nuclear power is not ideal but it’s better than climate change.

Given that is the view of very senior environmentalists and other people in the world today—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mitchell is testing my patience with relevance to the bill before me. I have allowed a wide ranging debate, but this is going too far.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, if you allow me to continue you will be pleasantly surprised. Given that it is—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The member for Mitchell will return to the bill.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I am not sure I have had a chance to congratulate you on your ascension back to that role. Anyhow, congratulations. I rise to support these amendments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 and the Extradition Act 1988. They are designed to correct a peculiarity in the current Australian law where certain illegal acts relating to acts by Australians against Australians within Australia involving nuclear terrorism are at this moment not covered by the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism to which Australia is a signatory. The current amendments have my full support. I have remembered that just a couple of years ago, nearby to Australia, some totally irresponsible person was arrested with several kilograms of caesium 137 in Bangkok. So the danger marches closer to us. I cannot believe that a person, for commercial purposes or for greed for money, would enter into such a prospect. But, apparently, there are such people in this world and that is why this kind of legislation is necessary. Nuclear terrorism, the prospect of which I have spoken about in this House, is potentially the gravest threat at the moment in the Middle East and, by inevitable extension, to the world, whether it is the development of nuclear weapons or, God forbid, a nuclear exchange or, as many people in this House have spoken about, the smuggling of dirty bombs and the use of them by terrorists within Australia. I refer to the most recent findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency in its report of November 2011, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran, wherein the agency, in the exquisite language of international diplomacy, states that:

This report focuses on those areas where Iran has not fully implemented its binding obligations, as the full implementation of these obligations is needed to establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

In this most recent report, in summary, the IAEA says that Iran has not suspended its nuclear enrichment related activities in, amongst others, the Natanz fuel enrichment plant and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, located near the city of Qom, or suspended work in heavy water related projects. Iran has declared to the agency 15 nuclear facilities in nine locations outside nuclear facilities where nuclear material is customarily used and the United Nations agency responsible for monitoring these kinds of things still awaits a substantive response in relation to announcements made by Iran concerning the construction of a further 10 new uranium enrichment facilities.

Most disturbingly, the agency reports it has become concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the agency has regularly received new information. Information that also serves as a basis for the agency's analysis and concerns comes from a variety of independent sources, including IAEA member states, the agency's own efforts and information provided by Iran itself. The information indicates Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of nuclear weapons. This is not a peaceful nuclear program. The official international UN agency is looking at issues beyond what would otherwise be a legitimate Bushehr nuclear reactor provided by the Russians to the Iranians apparently for nuclear power.

The IAEA has identified the following military related activities of Iran on nuclear power: efforts to procure nuclear related and dual-use equipment and materials by related individuals and entities—and I am very proud that the Australian government has on four occasions intercepted, as then Minister for Defence Faulkner revealed, dual-use items sought by Tehran for its program; efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material; acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network; and work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon, including the testing of components. While some of these activities identified by the agency have civil as well as military applications, others, most disturbingly and threateningly, are specific to nuclear weapons.

The President of the United States' adviser Matthew Kroenig senior in last weekend's Financial Review said that the IAEA has identified that Iran was testing nuclear triggering devices and redesigning its missiles to carry nuclear payloads. That is very ominous advice from Matthew Kroenig, who has just retired as an adviser to the President of United States. He was the President's adviser from July 2010 to July 2011 and so he has the latest information. I commend his very alarming article in the centre pages of the Financial Review to members of the House. In summary, the International Atomic Energy Agency now reports that it will not be in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, specifically to nuclear weapons, unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the agency. Recently I had the opportunity to sit down for an extensive period of time with Russia's very cosmopolitan foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Sydney. While I do not agree with many of his country's policy prescriptions on Syria and Iran, he did make the very sound point that the international community must at all costs keep the IAEA inspectors in Iran. The moment they are forced to leave is the moment for the international community to go to DEFCON 1, as the Iranians will be able to take their 20 per cent enriched uranium to 90 per cent within a very short period of time. I commend Mr Putin's and Russia's responsible posture in refusing to supply advanced missile defence to the Iranians.

One of the key things in understanding the possibility of nuclear proliferation and the possible provision of dirty bombs, even if not in the form of a nuclear weapon or a nuclear missile, is the nature of the Iranian regime. We all know that Persia was a great civilisation and that the Persian culture is a great civilisation. We all know that that regime stole an election from its own people more than just a year ago. The Iranian regime has a defence minister who has an indictment against him by the Argentinean Attorney-General for blowing up a civilian centre in Buenos Aires in the 1980s where more than 70 people were killed. It has recently been accused by the government of the United States of trying to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

I want to draw attention today to the latest of its grave behaviour, given the heightened tensions in that part of the world. It shows you the kind of people we are dealing with and the outlaw nature of this regime that would, in my view, provide dirty bombs to terrorists if it thought it could get away with it, even into a place like Australia. The conservative Alef site, just yesterday, in Tehran published a doctrine detailing why the destruction of a nation and the slaughter of all of its people would be legally and morally justified. The site gave jurisprudential justification for Iran's Islamic government to take the helm on these kinds of issues and to prosecute such a policy. The article was written by Khamenei's strategy specialist, Alireza Forghani, and is now being run, as we speak, on most state owned websites in Iran indicating the regime's support. My goodness me; what kind of a country is it where the government officially says that on its own websites? It indicates the nature of the people whom we are dealing with. Of course, this demeans and humiliates the great civilisation of Persia, which all of us are familiar with. When we meet Persians overseas they shake their heads with embarrassment at the kind of regime that is running things there at the moment.

It informs me—and I think it should inform all members of the House—about the nature of regimes. It does not disturb me at all that Australia provides uranium to India, China—with whom I certainly disagree on its foreign policy—or Japan, because these countries are essentially peaceful. They do not threaten anyone. We realise, of course, that there are grave issues with nuclear safety, which arose out of Fukushima. But it is the nature of regimes that we should look at—regimes that have these materials and have the possibility of providing dirty bombs to people with nuclear material. They are a threat to our citizens as well.

I also draw the attention of this House to the article, which I think all members should read, in the December issue of the Atlantic, which points out that, in order to prevent American surveillance of where its nuclear weapons are, the government of Pakistan is now driving these weapons around in delivery trucks through the crowded streets of Lahore, Rawalpindi and other cities in Pakistan. However crazy that policy sounds, it is a danger to citizens of the world. Surely one of the bad guys in Waziristan could drive one of their pickup trucks down to Rawalpindi, Dhaka or some place like that and intercept one of these government delivery trucks that are not safeguarded by the Pakistani military or supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency. They could just pick one of them up. What a danger that would be to the people of the world. The provision of dirty bombs to terrorists is a real issue. It is brought very closely to mind by the incident that I cited at the beginning of my speech, in which a man was arrested in Bangkok several years ago carrying several kilograms of polonium. This is timely legislation. Both sides of parliament are showing their responsibility to the Australian people by supporting it.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. There is no doubt that, as the member for Melbourne Ports said, this bill has bipartisan support. The coalition certainly backs this and we see the reason why. Out in the world, there has been recognition of the need to deal with these sorts of issues. With this bill, we see the implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. We in this country have always been very clear on this and have been very supportive of keeping these sorts of problems away from our own shores and working as part of the world community to make sure that the world is as safe a place as absolutely possible. So, yes, we certainly welcome this bill.

The world is a risky place. There is instability out there. There are countries and nations, there are organisations and there are political groups in this world that are not very positive and which pose a risk, whether that risk is through an intention or threats to commit harm or whether it is through corruption or at any point poor security. Where nuclear weapons and nuclear capacities are involved security and a lack of corruption is required. We must acknowledge that threat, so it is right and proper that this country adopts this bill and works as part of the world community to do as much as it can about nuclear terrorism. We support the measures contained in this amendment, because we do live in a dangerous world. There are threats posed by states and non-state actors. The threats are posed not solely by ideologies or Islamists but also by even older concepts such as the sheer pursuit of power.

The member for Melbourne Ports spoke quite extensively about Iran. I think that when we talk about nuclear threats to the world Iran figures prominently. It would be wrong to speak on this matter and not raise the issue of nuclear proliferation, because it remains a relevant point. In particular, with regard to the impending nuclear power Iran, much has been said about the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, it is right that we acknowledge the threat that the leaders of that power present. We know that Iran is a Shiah majority nation. Iranians are not, however, Arabs. As a result, Iran does struggle for wider credibility in the Arab Middle East. Its task is made more difficult because it has few natural Shiah friends. Currently, it has Syria, although perhaps that friend will not last much longer. We should keep in mind that the quick fall of the Syrian government and President Assad are highly desirable, but what is also desirable and required is that, unlike the concept of the Arab spring, which has proved to be an illusion with regard to democracy, in any fall of the Syrian regime liberal democracy needs to be promoted and that there has to be very hard work to promote it. This is unlike Egypt, where we saw a flicker of liberal democracy—but that was snuffed out fairly quickly by the highly organised Islamists represented by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The threat in Syria, as in many places in the Middle East, is that one regime can be easily replaced by an Islamist regime and that is certainly not a step forward, and provides no benefit and no security for those in the region. With regard to the relationship between Iran and Syria, there is no doubt that the fall of Syria would be a massive defeat for Iran. I think we should desire that as a good outcome. The Iranians do have some friends in the Middle East. They have the support of Syria and supply from Syria. They also have friends in Lebanon, the Hezbollah, whom they help to supply with weapons, and that other well-known terrorist organisation, Hamas, in the Gaza Strip. Apart from those limited friends, the other nations in the Middle East are predominantly the Sunni Muslims and they are Arabs.

It is well-known that Iran desires to lead the Muslim world. Iran pursues that leadership and pursues concepts such as the world caliphate, uniting all the world under Shiah Islam and the return of the Mahdi to exact justice on the world at the end of time. These are concepts that they talk about. To achieve that leadership, they are pursuing an anti-Israel agenda to get publicity and credibility with Arab nations in the Middle East, and they seek a nuclear warhead to match the delivery systems they already possess. They seek leadership in the Muslim world through power and the threat of a nuclear missile that will, they believe, allow them to control the sea lanes of the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz.

It is certainly my view that Iran is likely in the next 12 months to develop nuclear weapons and be able to deploy them. It is wise to be aware of this, particularly in the case of the United States and Israel. Consideration should be given to what action should be taken to address this threat. It is also my view that a nuclear armed Iran is unlikely to be able to be negotiated with and the stability of the gulf and its shipping would most definitely be threatened. Furthermore, an emboldened nuclear Iran may well feel that proliferation of nuclear capacity to its friends may also further its leadership in the wider Islamic world. Certainly in the near future, barring action from the US or Israel, the threat of nuclear terrorism will become increasingly likely.

From an international perspective, the pursuit by the current regime in Iran of hegemony in the Middle East, their pursuit of leadership of other countries, is most definitely their agenda and through nuclear weapons we can see that agenda being progressed. They are not a reliable member of the international community. They are not a safe or even, in my view, mentally stable organisation. If they seek to negotiate, we can only acknowledge that as a means to delay. If they want to talk it is a means to delay and take advantage of the turn-the-other-cheek mentality of the Western world, giving them more time before they are called to account.

Israel certainly understands that threat and they understand the time frame. I think the United States is a little too optimistic and is prepared to let these time frames slip out to 18 months or even a couple of years, during which action may be required. In my view and from the information that I have received, the crunch time for this issue is going to be within the next 12 months. That is a difficult issue, obviously, for the world. I believe the steps that are required will need to be taken within 12 months. That is scary. That will be a little bit difficult, but we should stand by our friends and realise that what will need to be done will need to be done and that we should be on the right side. In the end, what will happen in the Middle East if Iran gets this sort of leadership position or this sort of power position is not the sort of thing we want to contemplate. I believe that action will be required in the future.

We also know there are some radical views out there. Already Iran has been more than happy to support and back the worst sort of people—as I mentioned before, Hamas and Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. We can easily see that that sort of attitude towards the terrorists in the Middle East can be expanded to other parts of the world. You might well see the regime in Iran, if they do achieve that success in the Middle East and in the gulf, reach out to the radical Islamists in Indonesia. That is very much on our doorstep. It is something that we need to think about and realise that action is going to be required on. I have talked mainly in a broader global sense with regard—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to mention that, when you are talking about a bill, occasionally referring to the bill does help the chair.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I intend to be more constructive on the bill from here. I said that the influence of an emboldened Iran may come into South-East Asia. We know that already in Australia there are those who have travelled overseas to undertake terrorist training through Yemen. Last year I referred to some 55 people who are unaccounted for, having gone through Yemen, and who are suspected of being involved with terrorist training. An Australian citizen who is going to travel overseas for that sort of training, might well think involvement with the regime in Iran or its agents would be in their best interests and would further the pursuit of their objectives. When we look at the home-grown terrorist concerns within this country, we need to be mindful that the geopolitical influences of emerging nuclear powers might well be able to influence to some degree inside Australia as well.

As the member for Cook said earlier in his contribution on this bill—and I certainly agree with this—we need to be very careful about the way parallel societies could exist in Australia under the guise of cultural identity. I know that maintenance of a person's culture from their homeland is an important thing and it gives strength to people as they come to adjust and integrate into Australia. When we have places, countries, states and non-state players out there in the world seeking to take advantage of those who might feel disaffected or detached from Western liberal societies then we do need to think about that and we do need to think about making sure those ethnic or religious groups in Australia—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cowan told me he was going to get back to the legislation. About now would be a really good time to do it.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that the bill is about access to radioactive materials or devices, and the ability to reach out to disaffected groups within Australia by those people who have access to devices and nuclear materials is exactly the sort of link we need to consider—the fact that there might be those out there in the world who offer the capacity to those inside the country who want that capacity and are prepared to utilise that capacity. That is the point I was trying to make. We should be very careful. Those groups that might want to maintain their language and culture to the exclusion of English and the positive traditions of the last two centuries might seek to lock in their isolation from the mainstream and from the opportunities our nation offers. That would be a disservice to Australians of ethnic origins and to our country. Without a doubt the coalition supports this bill. Obviously we need to be vigilant here in Australia and we need to give due consideration to what is happening around the world.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I would like to support the words of the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Cowan and the other speakers who have contributed on this bill. This bill implements the provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism by adding new offences to Australia's Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism details offences relating to unlawful and intentional possession and use of radioactive materials or a radioactive device, or the use or damage of nuclear facilities. It is designed to promote cooperation amongst nations through the sharing of information and the providing of assistance for investigations and extraditions. The convention entered into force in July 2007 and requires all party states to make every effort to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the protection of radioactive material, taking into account relevant recommendations and functions of the agency. Originally proposed by Russia, the convention was first adopted on 13 April 2005 with the ultimate intention of protecting against attacks on a range of targets, including nuclear power plants and reactors. The bill creates new criminal offences, including possessing radioactive material or a convention device; making a convention device using radioactive material; using or damaging a convention device or a nuclear facility; threatening to use radioactive material; threatening to use or damage a convention device or a nuclear facility; demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility; and demanding another person allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility.

It would be nice to live in a world where such legislation was not necessary, but Edmund Burke's words from 1790 remind us 'There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.' Just before Christmas we had an important reminder of Edmund Burke's words and that the threat of terrorism in Australia is ever present when three Muslim extremists were convicted by the Supreme Court of Victoria for conspiring to plan a terrorist attack in the electorate of Hughes, which I represent. Each were sentenced to 18 years jail. The aim of these home-grown terrorists, members of an Islamic terrorist cell who had all met in a Preston mosque, was to enter the Holsworthy Barracks armed with military weapons and shoot 500 personnel or as many people as they possibly could before they were killed themselves or ran out of ammunition. The Holsworthy Barracks is more than just a military establishment. It has a history going back almost 100 years and it is the place where the families and friends of our defence personnel often gather to attend parades and ceremonies. Holsworthy railway station, a station used by several thousand commuters every day, sits on the boundary of the Holsworthy Barracks. Thankfully this planned terrorist attack in Sydney's south-west was thwarted when police arrested four suspected plotters before they had a chance to enact their plans.

To those anonymous heroes involved in what was known as Operation Neath—the joint investigation by the AFP, the Victorian Police, the New South Wales Police, the New South Wales Crime Commission and ASIO, who were supported by other agencies including the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—whose work was responsible for foiling this terrorist plot in Sydney's south-west, we cannot thank you enough for your professionalism, for your dedication to duty and for getting the job done. In handing down the 18-year jail sentences, Justice King told the court that she had a duty to protect the community, given that none of the accused had shown any remorse for a terror plot she described as an evil. Her Honour further said:

Your intentions and your plans were deadly serious. It was to kill as many personnel that could be found on the army base at Holsworthy in the time prior to yourselves being killed as martyrs …

She also noted:

… despite being given the opportunity, none of the trio had recanted their extremist views.

At the trial the court also heard that the three had expressed hatred of Australian people, whom they repeatedly referred to as 'infidels'. One of the convicted was even recorded as celebrating the death toll of the Black Saturday bushfires, saying it brought retribution to Australia.

Of the three convicted terrorists, one was born in Somalia and one in Lebanon. How such individuals are accepted into Australia as migrants remains a mystery and demonstrates that we must give our migration authorities all the resources that they require to undertake vigorous background checks of prospective migrants to ensure that they share our beliefs in human rights, liberty, inclusion, diversity and equal rights for women and, above all, that they are prepared to have a commitment and loyalty to the Australian nation above any other belief. The third convicted terrorist was, amazingly, an Australian-born citizen of Lebanese refugee parents.

Rightfully, Justice King said their disloyalty towards their adopted country was shameful. She said:

The fact that Australia nurtured you and your families is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame, that this was the way you planned to show your thanks for that support.

Your views about Australia and Australians, and your attitude towards the country's armed forces, its civilians and its government were clear. Your plans were evil.

But, unfortunately, this was not a one-off event. As the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, David Irvine, recently pointed out:

... Of the 38 people recently prosecuted for terrorism-related offences in Australia, 37 were Australian citizens and 34 were either born here or lived here since childhood.

Clearly, home-grown terrorism is a threat in Australia. Although we rightfully celebrate our multicultural society as one of our nation's greater strengths, it is also a warning sign that not all is well. We cannot bury our heads in the sand to this growing problem. If we are to avoid creating a divided and dysfunctional society, multiculturalism must be a policy for the whole of society to adopt and it must not be a policy which encourages the growth of a series of various monocultures developing in certain suburbs in a major city.

The threat or the use of nuclear weapons has been of paramount concern for governments for more than 60 years. While the threats of the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union have all but diminished there still remains the threat from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran. In addition, the threat of nuclear terrorism is real. It is well known that al-Qaeda has attempted to acquire nuclear materials, either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The possibility of future terrorist activities using nuclear devices must be a concern for all governments, including the Australian government, and it must be one we are prepared to confront.

Preventing these terrorist acts and deterring those who might seek to commit them requires full international cooperation. The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism is one way of fostering this international cooperation. This bill demonstrates Australia's commitment to ratifying this international counterterrorism instrument as an integral part of strengthening its legal framework to fight terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which will give effect to our obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This will create new criminal offences for (1) possessing or making radioactive material, nuclear explosive devices or a device to emit material with radiological properties which may cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment; (2) using or damaging a convention prescribed device or nuclear facility or threatening to do so; (3) threatening to use radioactive material; (4) demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention prescribed device or a nuclear facility; and (5) demanding another person allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention prescribed device or a nuclear facility.

Importantly, offences under this bill include serious penalties, up to 20 years imprisonment. Members of our Australian Defence Force will not be liable for prosecution under this convention, when acting in connection with the defence and security of Australia, nor does this convention cover actions of the armed forces during armed conflict.

Like my colleague and friend who spoke before me, the member for Hughes, I subscribe to the view that nuclear terrorism is our greatest security threat. One of the foremost authorities on this topic is Professor Graham Allison, a former US Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration. He is now Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, where I was a student and where I got to know Professor Allison well.

Professor Allison sees the nuclear threat as being entirely possible and points to the findings of a bipartisan United States Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism, which found:

… it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013 …

Professor Allison and this bipartisan congressional commission are not the only ones to point to the seriousness of this threat. President Obama has said that nuclear terrorism is the single most important national security threat that we face and, in his first speech as President to the United Nation's Security Council, he said:

Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city—be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris—could kill hundreds of thousands of people.

And it would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life.

Former United States CIA Director, George Tenet, said, 'The main threat is a nuclear one. I am convinced that this is where Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and his operatives desperately want to go.' Former US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, said that, 'It's the thought of a terrorist ending up with weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear' that keeps him up at night. Indeed, we were given a glimpse into the causes for this deep concern expressed by the leaders of the United States's military and security establishment through the WikiLeaks revelations, which referred to some of the files of those captured in Guantanamo. The United Kingdom's Telegraph newspaper, in its reporting of these WikiLeaks reports, said:

A senior Al-Qaeda commander claimed that the terrorist group has hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe which will be detonated if Bin-Laden is ever caught or assassinated. The US authorities uncovered numerous attempts by Al-Qaeda to obtain nuclear materials and fear that terrorists have already bought uranium. Sheikh Mohammed told interrogators that Al-Qaeda would unleash a "nuclear hellstorm".

It went on to say:

Terrorists also plotted major chemical and biological attacks against this country.

Professor Graham Allison believes that, despite the reality and pervasiveness of this threat, Americans are 'paralyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism'—that if it has not happened, it will not, or, if it does happen, we can do nothing to stop it. The truth is: we can. We can do something to mitigate this threat, to stop such an atrocity ever happening. We can strengthen our intelligence agencies, as the Howard government did—and I was proud to be involved in that process, supporting ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, when I was in the office of Prime Minister John Howard. We can strengthen our legislative processes, which is part of the bill before us. We can attract the best people. We can share information with our friends and our allies in order to get the best result. There is a way forward.

But there is a reality that we all have to face, and that is: in Australia the terrorist threat is ever so real. In a very important speech to the Sydney Institute, David Irvine, who is the head of ASIO, revealed exactly the depths of today's threat. He pointed out that over 100 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks overseas since 9-11, and he said that he did not share the view that the terrorist threat is either over exaggerated or that it just happens in another country. In fact, David Irvine, who is one of our finest diplomats—he had been our ambassador in China and heavily involved in security issues—has said that, in Australia, 23 individuals in recent years have been handed very heavy penalties for terrorist attacks, and he said in his speech:

It is worth reading the sentencing statements of the Australian judges to get an idea of the seriousness with which they viewed the offences—and the likely consequences had they been successful.

David Irvine went on to say:

ASIO continues to conduct several hundred counter-terrorism investigations and inquiries ranging from Australians in contact with terrorists off-shore, including al-Qa’ida, to possible threats to Australian interests or Australian lives from extremist activity, either on or off-shore.

He went on to say:

Within the Australian environment, we are seeing a worrying trend of “home grown terrorism”. This is not an abstract or an offshore threat; it is real and it is amongst us—

worryingly, too—

we are continuing to see a number of Australians seeking to travel overseas for participation in—or facilitation of—terrorism-related activities. My concern is that such people may target innocent people overseas, assist those who would do harm to our nation, or might return to Australia with a greater knowledge, training and intent to carry out an act of terrorism back home.

These are very profound, disturbing and important words. We can do something to stop the terrorist threat. We can do something to stop the nuclear threat. The first thing we can do is stop countries with existing nuclear capacity, like Pakistan and North Korea, proliferating their technology and their capacity to other countries. The second thing we can do is stop countries that currently do not have a nuclear device, like Iran, Syria and Burma, from ever getting one. The third is that we can tackle terrorism with a robust security framework and our deep alliances with our neighbours and friends, and the fourth is that we can introduce tough legislation that actually makes it an offence to do the types of activities that I have outlined today.

The Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is an important part of our arsenal. It is an important part of Australia's defence. I support it unequivocally, and so do my many colleagues on the coalition side.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. As my colleagues have already stated, the coalition does support this bill. According to the Bills Digestthe purpose of the bill is to:

... implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 2005 (the Convention) by creating new offences for criminal conduct relating to nuclear material and other radioactive substances or devices prohibited by the Convention.

The Bill also amends the Extradition Act 1988 to ensure the new offences will not be regarded as political offences for the purposes of extradition.

As set out in the bill's explanatory memorandum, the amendments proposed by the bill create new offences for possessing radioactive material for a nuclear explosive device or a device to emit material with radiological properties which may cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or the environment; making a convention device; using a damaging convention device or a nuclear facility or threatening to do so; demanding another person create radioactive material, a convention device or a nuclear facility; and demanding another person allow a third person to access or control radioactive material, a convention device or nuclear facility.

Under these amendments, Australian Defence Force members will not be prosecuted when acting in connection with the defence or security of Australia. The convention does not govern the actions of armed forces during an armed conflict. However, this exemption does not apply if any serving member's actions are not connected with the defence or security of Australia or if they are otherwise acting unlawfully. Also of note is that the bill does not criminalise the lawful possession and use of radioactive materials if, for example, it is being used for medical applications. There must, however, be an intention to use or make available the material for a prohibited purpose, such as death or property damage.

In terms of prosecution, whether or not the intended outcome occurs is not relevant to a prosecution and there is a maximum penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for the new offences created by this bill. In terms of committee considerations of the bill, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties expressed its support for the convention and, ultimately, recommended that the binding treaty action be taken. The committee stated that ratification would:

... contribute to international efforts aimed at countering terrorism involving the use of radioactive material. It will ensure that persons who commit such acts can be brought to justice irrespective of the territory in which they are found and whether or not extradition agreements are in place.

Those were just two of the compelling reasons why the committee supported Australia undertaking the proposed binding treaty action. The committee further commented that implementing legislation would 'further strengthen Australia's strong counter-terrorism legislative framework', that the ratification would 'send a message to the international community demonstrating Australia's continued commitment to addressing the threat of terrorism' and that it would 'strengthen Australia's case in encouraging regional countries to ratify the 16 international counterterrorism instruments'.

The committee also made comment on the inordinate length of time between the signing of the treaty in September 2005 and the tabling of it in parliament. I also consider it quite extraordinary that it has taken six years to table this treaty in parliament given the importance of antiterrorism measures and, in particular, the concerns about nuclear terrorism activities. The background to the United Nations convention dates back to when the UN Ad Hoc Committee commenced work on the draft International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in 1998. History shows that, at the time, the only existing international convention on nuclear matters was limited to nuclear material which was being used for peaceful purposes. In April 2005 the general assembly adopted the UN's Convention on Nuclear Terrorism. Some five months later, in September of that year, it was open for signing.

As stated by the member for Stirling and others, the convention is a multilateral treaty open to ratification by all nations and is designed to criminalise acts of nuclear terrorism and to promote judicial and police cooperation in order to prevent, investigate and penalise those acts. It includes a wide range of acts and potential targets, which include nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors. I am sure everyone agrees that the convention is an important instrument in the international effort to combat terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction. The convention includes threats and attempts to commit crimes or to participate in them and instructs that offenders will be either extradited or prosecuted. The convention also encourages assistance between each other with criminal investigations and extradition proceedings by sharing information so as to prevent terrorist attacks.

On terrorism, others have already stated that the coalition genuinely supports counterterrorism measures which include nuclear terrorism measures in Australia and abroad. I am not sure why the Gillard Labor government does not place the same emphasis on national security as we do. I would have thought that if it did it would ensure that our national security agencies are resourced appropriately to enable them to focus on international and home-grown terrorism. If the Gillard Labor government were serious about ensuring that our national security agencies were appropriately resourced, why did it cut $12 million from the National Counter Terrorism Committee in the 2011-12 budget? And why did it cut $1.4 million from the AFP's counterterrorism operations? At a time when people do not feel our borders are safe and are worried about terrorism, at a time when people do not think they can trust the Gillard Labor government, why does the government cut national security agency funding?

As already stated by the member for Stirling, we all know that the most important weapon in the fight against terrorism is information, and unfortunately the Gillard Labor government just cannot be trusted to ensure that our national security agencies and the AFP have the intelligence-gathering powers they need to identify preparation and planning for terrorist acts so as to stop them before they are carried out. Like other members of the coalition, I am deeply concerned by Labor's cutbacks to the AFP's counterterrorism program. To prevent terrorism you do not cut back funding; you ensure that the programs are appropriately funded. And that is what Labor has to do. Labor needs to commit appropriate funds to the AFP's counterterrorism and intelligence programs.

When the coalition was in government the contrast was clear, as it provided over $10.4 billion of funding from September 2001. This was to enhance Australia's national security and counterterrorism programs by increasing the capacity of our intelligence agencies. As we heard from the member for Kooyong, the former Howard government provided ASIO and the AFP with more resources and legislative support, which ensured that they had the resources that enabled them to stay ahead of the game and to stop terrorist activity before it occurred. History shows us that the coalition strongly supported our national security and law enforcement agencies. This support is strong today. It is essential that these agencies be resourced appropriately so they can do their job—that is, to fight crime effectively.

In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, the coalition supports the intention of this bill to implement provisions of the UN convention. As already stated by my colleague and friend the member for Stirling, the coalition agrees that ratifying this convention will send a strong message to the international community that Australia is committed to addressing the threat of terrorism.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to lend some comment to the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I precede my remarks by saying that the coalition intends to support the bill. There are a number of worthy aspects to it. It seeks to add new offences to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. This will be accomplished by implementing the new provisions outlined in the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, otherwise known as the nuclear terrorism convention. It is a multilateral treaty, which of course makes it open for each nation to ratify. It is designed to promote judicial and constabulary cooperation in order to prevent, investigate and penalise criminal acts in relation to the convention's intended purpose.

As some in the chamber would be aware, Commonwealth legislation already implements most of our obligations under the nuclear terrorism convention. This bill seeks to ensure that all criminal offences specified in article 2 of the convention are appropriately covered by the application of Commonwealth legislation.

The amendments contained in the bill create new offences for possessing radioactive material or a device considered under the convention to be a nuclear explosive device that would emit radiological material that may cause death or serious bodily harm or damage to property or the environment; making such a device as prescribed under the convention; using or damaging such a device, including threatening to do so; demanding another person create radioactive materials, devices or nuclear facilities; and demanding a person allow a third party to access or control such facilities, devices or materials.

The bill stipulates with regard to these offences that there must be an intention to use or make available the material for prohibited purposes. There is a suitable penalty—20 years imprisonment—that applies to offences created by this bill. However the bill does not criminalise the lawful possession and use of radioactive material. The importance of the use of radioactive material in the form of isotopes is known by all those involved in medicine and by those who have been the recipients of some of the great advances in medicine. It is also apparently contained in household smoke alarms, which gives me a whole new perspective on accessing smoke alarms, I can tell you.

It is important to note that there are also provisions that protect Australian Defence Force, ADF , personnel from prosecution when they act in accordance with the duties normally required of them and in the defence of the nation's interests. This is in line with the n uclear t errorism c onvention , which itself does not govern the actions of armed forces during armed conflict. Naturally, th e exemption does not apply to Australia's military forces if their activities are not related to their duties and to their work in securing Australia's national interests. Quite simply, if you are a soldier, sailor or airman or airwoman and you are acting unlawfully, then you will be liable for persecution under the terms of the bill, as you should be for any unlawful activity. It is a sensible measure, and I personally support it as the shadow minister for defence personnel, science and technology. It is important to reiterate that this bill specifically precludes ADF members from being liable for prosecution when undertaking what can broadly be termed as their normal working duties. It is sensible and it ensures our defence personnel are provided with the legal protection they need when carrying out lawful general orders in the prosecution of armed combat.

We support the bill. It makes measurable sense. The protections provided for military personnel are sound. If we cast our eye to the possible use of nuclear material within terrorism in general, we start to get a feel for why measures such as this are needed. According to the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, a database run by the National Counterterrorism Cent e r in the United States , as at the end of October 2010 there ha d been 17,833 separate terrorist attacks across the world perpetrated by Islamic extremists . This is an inordinate number of terrorist attacks since September 11—something like 1,300 per year or four per day.

Furthermore, i n their report for 2009 the National Counterterrorism Cente r stated that there had been 299 suicide bombing attacks in 2009 in 13 countries. We should probably more rightly call them 'homicide' attacks, because suicide bombers are not seeking to kill themselves; they are seeking to use maximum bloody force to destroy as many people as possible in the closest possible circumstances. There were 299 suicide bombing attacks in 2009 alone in 13 countries. There appear to be more Mumbai-style attacks as terrorist organisations continually adapt. We see that in the prosecution of combat operations in Afghanistan, where a resilient enemy learns, adapts and grows, and we see that with the improvised explosive device threat. Fifty thousand people were killed or wounded in terrorist attacks during 2009, with over 50 per cent of victims being Muslim. There have been almost 18,000 terrorist attacks in the last 11 or 12 years. There were 300 suicide bombings in 2009 and tens of thousands killed in 2009. The vast majority of attacks were perpetuated by Islamic extremists, the majority of the victims being those who practise the Islamic faith. The world sometimes truly is a screwed-up place.

Perhaps most importantly, we need to recall that since September 11 over 110 Australians have been killed by terrorist attacks. In the September 11 terrorist attack in the US, 15 Australians were killed. On 12 October 2002, at Kuta, Bali, 88 Australians were killed—202 people were killed and 209 injured in total. On 9 September 2004, at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, nine Indonesians were killed and 150-plus injured. On 7 July 2005, in the London train and bus bombings, one Australian was killed and 11 were injured—in total 56 people died and 700-plus were injured. On 1 October 2005, at Jimbaran Beach in Kuta, Bali, four Australians were killed and 19 injured out of a total of 26 deaths and 100 injuries. Of course, on 17 July 2009, at the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta, three Australians were killed—seven people were killed and 53 injured in total. International terrorism represents a significant, clear and very, very present danger to the world as a whole, including Australians. We are not isolated on our wonderful island continent in the southern part of the world, as 110 deaths in terrorist related incidents since September 11 unfortunately bear testimony to.

One need only look to the Middle East and to the lunacy of President Ahmadinejad and his thirst for power in terms of progressing the advent of nuclear weapons, which is where Iran wants to go. This simply bears testimony to the lunacy of some of the regimes that we face across the world. North Korea, of course, has detonated a number of nuclear devices. Reports in the media indicate that the military junta in Burma is seeking similar advances down that path. The stopping of the proliferation of nuclear weapons needs to be a key activity of the governments of all freedom-loving nations of the world. The governments of North Korea, Burma, Iran and other similar nations that purposefully pursue a nuclear program with the intent of the destruction of human life need to be made aware by the rest of the international community that their actions will not be condoned or tolerated.

Walls are built brick by brick in defence against terrorism and Islamic extremism. One of those bricks is this bill, which seeks to enshrine some of the prosecutorial elements of the convention. Australia as a sovereign nation and as a member of the wider international community will act to limit the potential damage caused by terrorists. We will act abroad in concern for our interests; we will act in concert with our allies, as we do in Afghanistan and other parts of the world; and we will act on a legislative basis to ensure that citizens, residents or visitors to our country do not involve themselves in these activities. We support the government on the bill and we wish it well in its implementation.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all of the members of the chamber who have spoken on this bill. It has been supported by both sides of the House. In fact, all of the speakers have indicated their support: the members for Stirling, Makin, Cook, Fowler, Mitchell, Melbourne Ports, Cowan, Hughes, Kooyong, Solomon and Fadden. I think this is an indication that across both sides of parliament people understand that the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will make an important contribution to Australia's fight against terrorism and misuse of weapons of mass destruction. It will also demonstrate to the international community that Australia is serious about cooperating with other nations to defeat threats to international peace and security.

Nuclear terrorism, of course, is a horrifying thought, as many of the speakers have reflected. A nuclear terrorist attack can kill millions, lay waste to cities and the environment and cause grave social and economic dislocation. We hope that the world never sees the day, but in today's security environment we should never discount the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack occurring. The bill will put in place offences that will allow Australia to prosecute nuclear terrorists. It will also facilitate cooperation with other nations in the fight against nuclear terrorism and the bill forms part of a broad effort by the international community to fight nuclear terrorism, including the fact that it will allow Australia to ratify the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This is a significant piece of legislation which sends a strong message to the international community and would-be nuclear terrorists.

Of course, it is important for us always to remember to distinguish between this bill and debates which are inevitable in the community about uranium exports and nuclear power. Whatever your views might be on those issues, we can all unite—as has been evidenced by speakers in this chamber—around the proposition that we should be part of an effective international legal regime to fight nuclear terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.