Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that 12 August 2019 marked the 70th anniversary of the opening for signature of the four Geneva Conventions in 1949;

(2) notes that the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the foundation of modern international humanitarian law, remain as fundamental and relevant to armed conflict today as when they were opened for signature 70 years ago;

(3) acknowledges that the Geneva Conventions, while universally accepted, are not being uniformly respected in times of war, underscoring the need for ongoing advocacy;

(4) recalls that the Conventions and their Additional Protocols protect those who are not fighting, such as civilians, medical personnel, chaplains and humanitarians as well as non-military places such as hospitals;

(5) honours the continuing role of Australian Red Cross in:

(a) disseminating international humanitarian law;

(b) assisting successive Australian Governments to ensure respect for and disseminate international humanitarian law; and

(c) educating the general public about the correct use of the red cross emblem;

(6) pays respect to the continuing global leadership role of the International Committee of the Red Cross in assisting the victims of armed conflict and working for the greater understanding and advancement of international humanitarian law;

(7) determines that Australia should remain, now as always, a global leader in advocacy for, and implementation of, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and all that they stand for; and

(8) resolves that this resolution has effect and continues in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the houses in this or a subsequent parliament.

In 1949, with the horrors of the previous decade still fresh in their mind, countries including Australia joined together to discuss the failings of the rules of war and unnecessary massive loss of civilian lives that had resulted from the Second World War. As a result, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was created. The aim of this treaty was to provide protection for civilians and non-military personnel, such as chaplains and hospital staff, within a war zone and prevent the devastating loss of life that the signatories had witnessed over the decade preceding the treaty's creation.

The treaty was subsequently agreed to under the Chifley Labor government and ratified under the Menzies Liberal government in 1957 as the Geneva Conventions Act of 1957. Australia has always had a strong bipartisan approach to ensuring that the armed conflicts Australia and our allies engage in support the application of the conventions as well as ensuring the Australian Defence Force keeps its commitment to providing humanitarian support. It is important that we recognise this, and I would like to thank the member for Moreton for supporting this motion as a co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Australian Red Cross.

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the creation of this treaty and is a time where we must reflect on the current nature of armed conflict. The undeniable conclusion of this reflection is that this treaty is as significant to conflicts around the world today as it was at its conception. Along with the previous three Geneva conventions of 1864, 1907 and 1929 and the additional protocols, this collective set of treaties has become a cornerstone of international humanitarian law. Since 1993, the conventions have been part of a customary international law and are thus binding on all state actors engaging in armed conflicts.

We must also pay respect to the Australian Red Cross and its parent organisation, the International Committee of the Red Cross. This organisation has been instrumental in protecting the sick, the wounded and the victims of armed conflict since its establishment 156 years ago. To this day the Red Cross continues its vision in providing human dignity, peace, safety and wellbeing for all. It tirelessly supports the application of international humanitarian law and has reduced suffering across Australia and around the world by supporting people in times of their greatest vulnerability.

Red Cross Australia lists six current strategic goals: building an active humanitarian movement, creating resilience in disasters, championing peace and reducing suffering, overcoming adversity, maintaining an innovative organisation, and providing a safe and secure blood supply. The work of the Red Cross in promoting the 1949 Geneva conventions was recognised recently by the organisation's patron, His Excellency the Governor-General, who described the organisation as being:

… pivotal to building and maintaining respect for the conventions and international humanitarian law.

Therefore, it is important that we, as a parliament, support the ongoing dedication and leadership of this organisation.

A fundamental part of supporting the organisation's mission is examining our involvement in the international application of the Geneva conventions. Unfortunately, the conventions are not universally respected. We are all aware of the current regional destabilisation caused by armed conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. As a global leader in advocacy for these conventions, we must ensure that we remain focused on providing support for the peaceful resolution of these conflicts, such as in Yemen. Furthermore, as international law is becoming increasingly relevant in the global age, it is therefore imperative that we use this anniversary to reinforce Australia's continuing efforts to ensure the implementation of the conventions interuse by state actors.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to second the motion, and I rise to speak on the motion by the member for Mackellar and thank him for his fine words. It's a motion marking the 70th anniversary of the opening for signature of the four Geneva conventions of 1949. As I am one of the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the Australian Red Cross, along with the member for Mackellar, it is timely to remember that the original Geneva convention, adopted in 1864, was initiated by what is now known as the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. The first treaty protected wounded and sick soldiers during wartime. Other conventions followed, in particular, after World War II in 1949. Collectively, the Geneva conventions and their additional protocols provide minimum protection, standards of humane treatment and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals caught up as victims of armed conflict.

Before the 1949 conventions were adopted only combatants were protected, not civilians. The events of that horrible World War II highlighted the catastrophic consequences of not providing protections for civilians in wartime—for example, there were 15 million battle deaths in World War II and 45 million civilian deaths, and 45 million is probably a low estimate. So the 1949 conventions set out obligations of the occupying power towards civilians and detailed provisions for humanitarian relief for populations in occupied territory. They set out protections on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and soldiers who are hors de combat, or outside the fight due to injury or damage. The conventions and additional protocols are known as the humanitarian law of armed conflicts. The conventions and protocols regulate the conduct that occurs during armed conflict. The objective is to have no breaches of the conventions. Where grave breaches occur, including torture or biological experiments and people wilfully causing great suffering, those responsible must be sought and tried, or extradited for trial, whatever their nationality.

The Geneva conventions have been ratified by all states and are universally applicable. One of the very visible protections provided by the conventions and their additional protocols is the defined use of emblems. The red cross emblem was settled in the first Geneva convention way back in 1864 as a clear neutral sign on the battlefield to protect medical staff and facilities. It is the exact reverse of neutral Switzerland's flag. The red crescent was adopted by the Ottoman Empire during the Russo-Turkish War as its protective sign while still recognising the red cross. In 2005 the red crystal emblem was adopted as an additional protective sign because it has no national, political or religious connotations. All three emblems are now universally recognised for protective use in armed conflict for the protection of medical services or equipment and buildings of the armed forces under international law. Protection through the emblems is extended to certain humanitarian organisations when they're working alongside the military, attending to the suffering or the wounded prisoners and civilians caught up in a conflict. The emblems can also be for indicative use where they're used to identify national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies around the world.

In Australia we're all familiar with the red cross emblem used for the Australian Red Cross. It is a symbol we have come to trust in these times of many emergencies. In the last few weeks, as Australia has been burning, we've seen the Australian Red Cross mobilised to offer support and relief to those caught up in the horrific bushfires raging across the country. Red Cross volunteers are staffing evacuation centres, comforting people who have lost their homes and, sadly, in a few cases, even their family members. In some evacuation centres in New South Wales, Red Cross volunteers have registered more than 1,000 people and even some of their pets. One of the evacuees described knowing the Red Cross volunteers were there to help as being 'the sense of people wrapping around you' which is what the Red Cross did. It might not be a war zone, but the people being comforted by the Red Cross volunteers are suffering and in shock at the devastation all around them.

The Red Cross are doing amazing work under very difficult circumstances. Tracy, a Red Cross volunteer at one evacuation centres, said:

The reason why I'm a Red Cross volunteer is the empathy we can show people and that we really do care about them and their mental health, their family, making sure that they are in a safe place.

It's important work that the Red Cross does in both disaster relief and conflict zones around the world. This motion pays respect to the continuing global leadership role of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and I thank the member for Mackellar and the rest of the bipartisan Parliamentary Friends of Australian Red Cross for their support. I commend their continuing leadership and the Red Cross all around the world. On the occasion of this, the 70th anniversary of the Geneva conventions of 1949, it's important for everyone in the House to remain vigilant of the object and purpose of the conventions and their protocols and to stand ready to defend them.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise in support of this motion and I thank the member for Mackellar for his outstanding work in bringing this motion and also in relation to his outstanding work in the committee upon which he serves.

I'm a lover of history and I think it's important that we get a bit of a better understanding about where these Geneva conventions came from. Having done a little bit of research on this, I'm advised that the Geneva conventions had their genesis by a gentleman by the name of Henri Dunant. He was a Genevan businessman who was on his way to a trade mission meeting with Emperor Napoleon III's staff in Italy. On his way to this meeting, he stumbled across a battlefield. It was, I understand, a dreadful sight. Based on what he saw at that battlefield, there were many combatants who were treated very badly, particularly if they had been wounded. He took it upon himself to be an agent for change. That was back in 1859. In 1863, the works that Mr Dunant did led to a meeting of various states. I think it was then only 12 states that met, and they concocted what was to then become the first Geneva convention.

The first Geneva convention dealt with the care of wounded soldiers and their repatriation. That then led to two more conventions, the second and third Geneva conventions of 1906 and 1929 respectively. Once again, they dealt predominantly with the care of wounded combatants. Interestingly, the one that Henri Dunant developed, which became the first Geneva convention, led to the establishment of the Red Cross. We now know that the International Committee of the Red Cross is an organisation that operates worldwide and, as the previous speaker said, does absolutely remarkable work, some 160 years later, in relation to natural disasters and in times of warfare. I want to send a big shout-out to two of my constituents who have done some terrific work with the Red Cross. Mike and Lyn Gahan are absolutely tireless workers for the Red Cross, and my hat goes off to them because, as we speak right now, they're probably in a place that none of us would want to go to.

The Geneva conventions then led to the 1949 fourth Geneva convention. We saw in the conflict of World War II that the first, second and third iterations of the Geneva convention didn't adequately address the harm that warfare does to civilians. Whilst I was representing the Australian parliament in the Inter-Parliamentary Union just a few months ago, I sat in on a discussion with an African parliamentarian who gave the most harrowing story of her own rape and the treatment of her village in times of warfare. We here in Australia may at times think we're doing it tough, but it's times like that, when you sit and listen to a parliamentarian talk about how she was raped and villagers were slaughtered, that really put things into perspective. That's why the Geneva conventions are so important and why Australia signed up to them.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to start by thanking the member for Mackellar for bringing this motion to the House. Last Thursday I joined some very excited year 12 students—along with some very proud parents, some incredibly relieved teachers and other members of the Mount Lawley Senior High School community—for their school graduation. On stage with me was Arthur Leggett OAM. Arthur is 101 years old. He was a prisoner of war in Germany in World War II. He was forced to work in a coalmine for a number of years. He served for some 25 years as President of the Ex-Prisoners of War Association of WA. Now, at 101 years old, he still has the energy and drive to share his story, his experience and his insights with students at Mount Lawley and across Western Australia. In fact, it was because of his generosity of spirit and his sharing of stories that the Mount Lawley high school community named their library in his honour last year.

The Geneva convention was to ensure that we treat prisoners of war more humanely than Arthur Leggett was treated. It was the Menzies government that first enacted the Geneva conventions in Australia. Like the member for Mackellar, I commend that government for that action. The conventions are as fundamental and relevant as they ever were. When we enacted them into law some 60 years ago, we didn't know the sort of warfare that we would see today, nor the sorts of circumstances or horror that might come on us with terrorism and other things. But that these conventions have stood the test of time is a credit to those parliamentarians and all who were involved in the drafting of the conventions.

Australia does have an important role in advocating for these conventions and the system of international humanitarian law which they underpin, both at home and abroad. We can't take a small view of Australia's role in the world. We are a founding member of the United Nations. We are a voice of reason across the world. We should embrace that role; we shouldn't shy away from it.

The first Geneva convention was written in 1864, some 155 years ago, and today in this place we are commemorating the 70 anniversary of the Geneva conventions as we know them today. Following the atrocities of World War II, the international community collectively decided that we should limit the barbarity of war. Some 75 million people were killed in the Second World War. Of those, 40 million of them were civilians—some three per cent of the global population at that time. For Australia, some 30,000 Australians became prisoners of war. Of those captured in the Pacific more than a third were killed. Slaughter like this should never be allowed to happen again.

The establishment of the United Nations and the Geneva conventions did create the framework which we now know for our modern international humanitarian law system. It gave us the tools, it gave us the drive and it gave us a stronger sense of moral obligation to make sure that such horrors are never repeated. The fundamental principle, which is a principle that should go through all moments of our life, is the humane treatment of other human beings, and, most importantly, of those who are not involved in combat.

The conventions have been ratified by every member of the United Nations, reaching what we know as universal acceptance. Australia has accepted the full scope and obligations of the Geneva conventions and we are a party to the two other treaties adopted in 1977.

The history of building international institutions to ensure global peace is something which Australia is proud of and something which Australia must continue to do. We can never take peace for granted and we can never assume that other nations will automatically share our values or see things the same way that Australia sees them. We don't live in a perfect international system. There are many injustices have not been addressed, but the international system we have has, on the whole, made the world a kinder and fairer place and it's a system we should embrace, as we do when we pass motions such as this.

I'll finish by noting that last Wednesday was World Children's Day. I'd like to endorse the campaign that UNICEF is currently running to ensure that we do not use schools or educational facilities in the pursuit of war and that we see them as particularly important places in providing safety for all peoples.

Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the member for Mackellar on his motion to mark the 70th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. It would be remiss of me, whilst standing in this place and speaking on this motion, not to first acknowledge our servicemen and women, both at home and abroad, those active or retired, and those who have come before us, and to thank them for their service to our nation. I acknowledge the freedoms we enjoy today are not without sacrifice.

The position of this building in which we stand is not an accident. The Australian War Memorial and Parliament House have been purposely geographically aligned with each other. The clear line of sight between these two buildings helps those of us deliberating in this House understand that we should never forget the decisions we make in this place have real, tangible and sometimes terrible consequences.

On the 70th anniversary of the fourth Geneva convention, Australia can be proud of its humanitarian record during times of conflict. We continue to uphold the protocols with continued advocacy to champion protections for medical personnel, civilians, chaplains and humanitarian aid workers who can be inadvertently and devastating collateral damage in a conflict zone.

Australia not only upholds the conventions in its own affairs but seeks to advocate for the importance of holding these protocols on the global stage. The Geneva conventions form some of the most important sets of protections outlining the conduct of war in human history. In 1863, businessman Henri Dunant, who was shocked by the atrocities he witnessed in the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in Italy, saw the need for a non-partisan international relief agency that would provide support to those caught up and affected by military conflict. His work resulted in the formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which today continues to flourish and is one of the most recognisable and trusted organisations in the world, with its principles such as humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality.

The formation of the Geneva conventions was significant, and remains significant, as it represents a high point in multilateralism following the devastating effects of World War II. Prior to the Geneva conventions there were no guidelines for warfare and no expectations for how states, monarchies, their armies or rogue groups should operate or conduct themselves during times of war. Prior to the Geneva conventions there were no consequences for perpetrators of the atrocities witnessed during wartime. Accordingly, these rules of war provided a true global pledge to protect the sanctity of human life and dignity in war by reducing suffering, saving countless lives during armed conflict.

Today, on the 70th anniversary of the fourth Geneva convention, we can reflect on the continued relevance of the protocols for conflict. Almost universally ratified—by 196 states—these rules find particular relevance in the wake of the changing landscape and notions of modern warfare. Wars today are increasingly fought internally between the armed forces of national governments and non-state armed groups. These groups are often radicalised and loosely structured, rendering the resulting conflicts more complex, protracted and widespread than ever before. At a time when our international community is struggling to meet the changing needs arising from emergencies around the world, the need for international obligations which enshrine basic principles of humanity is especially important.

Drawing upon the norms and translating the protocols of the Geneva conventions into action presents both a challenge and an opportunity as we embark on the next stages of crafting appropriate standards of humanitarian treatment in times of war. How will our international commitments change as we move towards the challenges presented by emerging technological, biological and cyber types of warfare? How can we adequately take into account the different risks arising from these different types of warfare? In the preamble to the 1949 Geneva convention, contracting parties committed to the earnest wish to see peace prevail among people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also draw the room's attention to the member for Mackellar's motion, and thank him for bringing it forward. The member for Bruce makes two very good points. The first was in quoting former Prime Minister Keating. I will put it in a different way: wars and rumours of wars are not new. We've had a relatively stable time since the Second World War, though we've had other wars that we have been involved in, with their considerable consequences for Australian lives and wellbeing. We have had in my lifetime, being a baby born after the war, a relatively peaceful time, especially because we're here, sheltered in this nation. His second point was on the importance of the International Red Cross as a neutral body that can go into war. In 1859 Dunant cared for wounded soldiers, and then first enacted in 1864 the Geneva conventions, with the Menzies government agreeing to them in 1949 and legislating them. Further to that, 70 years after, all states that are connected to the United Nations have signed up to this.

We live in an imperfect world where evil men still perpetrate war crimes against their fellow man, men and women. We live in a time of relative safety because we live on this island—this great south land. But it is important for this House to stand up, even in these evil times, even on what we have read recently of what's happened. Sadly, I was able to see a true-story movie about Americans being sent into war-torn Africa to bring out a humanitarian American doctor. At the last moment, the leader of the brigade that was sent in could not leave the local inhabitants there to be slaughtered in that village. He knew what was going to happen to them. They turned the helicopters around and went back, which was seen as an act of frailty and tomfoolery and a ridiculous move by the leader. They eventually got these people out, so it is a good-news story, but to see the barbarity of what happened in that conflict—that's why I say it is a true story. We have a Geneva convention that will never defeat evil men—never—but will give guidelines as to how we should treat others.

As the member for Bruce said, we do need to step up as Australians. We've signed this convention and we're giving you a guide as to how people should treat each other in conflict, which we know doesn't happen. Let's be honest: we know that, in times of war, terrible things happen. But we also know that, if we're going to prevail in the good, we have to have these guidelines. So it's good to recognise that all the way back to Dunant, when he saw those people virtually crucified on the battlefield and said: 'There needs to be a group to come in. There needs to be a group to come in and look after these people, and we need a neutral group to do that.' Therefore, the Red Cross was born.

These Geneva conventions are important, so that the world knows that there are rules around what we do and how we do it in times of conflict, which we all want to avoid as much as possible. I hope Australia has taken the lead in nuclear disarmament. Australia has taken the lead in giving these Geneva conventions legislation power in this country so that we can say to our own people, 'We will abide by these rules.' And we train our armed services to do exactly that. May they do it well. May they do the job that we ask them to do, and do it within the rules of this Geneva convention.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion and also join in congratulating the member for Mackellar for introducing the motion. On 12 August this year, the Geneva conventions turned 70. Around Australia, the Australian Red Cross held numerous commemorations to mark such an important occasion. The Geneva conventions and their additional protocols are one of the greatest humanitarian achievements of the last century. They enshrine legal limits in times of war and have saved countless civilians and combatants, who have ceased to take part in hostilities.

As International Committee of the Red Cross president Peter Maurer said:

The world has universally agreed that even in times of war humanity must prevail. It is absolute truth that we would be worse off without the Geneva Conventions. But they need better support, more powerful advocates and a spirit of innovation to charter new ways to protect people in today's rapidly changing world.

There is no time in history when the laws of war have been so important. They protect people from unacceptable risks and inhumane behaviour. Under the laws of war, the Australian government is required to train its armed forces and others in Australia about the rules and the limits of warfare, which it duly and effectively does. The Australian Red Cross also plays an active role in teaching Australians about the laws of war in peacetime.

The great achievement of having every country on the globe sign up to the Geneva convention is that we drew a line. We created a baseline for behaviour in conflict, which might otherwise descend beyond the requirements of military necessity to inhumane levels of barbarism. These laws prohibit the deliberate targeting of civilians; the destruction of schools, hospitals, religious and cultural sites; the use of child soldiers; the rape of women and girls; and the torture of prisoners. People and fighters who find themselves in situations of armed conflict are entitled to rely on this safety net. They're entitled to medical attention, food, water and shelter. They're entitled to maintain contact with their loved ones and to be cared for as human beings. War is no excuse for deliberate violations of human dignity.

The existence of these legal limits is sadly not enough to keep citizens safe. The Australian government should be seeking to mitigate the impacts of conflicts and to punish those who commit war crimes. We must show leadership. The Australian government needs to step up and take responsibility for those Australians involved in the conflict in Syria and treat those no longer taking part in hostilities humanely and in accordance with international humanitarian law, and ensure that they face the full force of Australian law where appropriate. This includes detainees or foreign fighters and members of their families, especially innocent children caught up in the conflict.

There are two international humanitarian law instruments the Australian government has not signed, despite years of claiming it's considering doing so. They are the optional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Beyond these two gaps in our IHL architecture, the real issue is doing more to punish war criminals. Australia has jurisdiction to do so and to tackle the many issues the world is facing—in particular, global warming magnifies impacts of conflicts by creating complex emergencies—and reducing the risk of use of nuclear weapons.

Australia should take action and be a leader on the humanitarian issues we are facing—in particular, global warming, because it exacerbates humanitarian needs in times of conflict. Tackling this will assist to avert disastrous humanitarian consequences, particularly in Africa. Nine of the top 10 countries most vulnerable to climate change are in Africa, and seven of those nine are affected by armed conflicts. In January this year, the Red Cross warned the UN Security Council that worldwide warming must be addressed. The rules of war specifically prohibit attacks against the natural environment that are intended to cause serious damage, such as the prohibition to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. These are very important requirements that must be further prosecuted and really upheld.

The government should also advocate for the upcoming nuclear proliferation treaty review conference in 2020 to reduce the number of nuclear warheads from the current estimate of over 13,800, and can work to have the 2,000 weapons on high alert reduced. (Time expired)

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The important 70th anniversary of the Geneva convention is recognised in this chamber—very important. Australia has been a key to supporting the Geneva convention applied around the word. I want to add remarks about the complexity of that challenge. It is not simply a matter of recognising the convention and putting hope in the Red Crosses in every corner of the world where there is conflict. Conflict is changing. I'll run through another couple of practical examples of that and some of the limitations.

My personal experience was 1992, when I found myself trapped in a civil war in Afghanistan after the fleeing of the then Russian sponsored leader and the breakdown of the situation in that country. Very rapidly the ICRC hospital became the heart of the Western response to try to maintain a semblance of stability as one side basically occupied the mountains and shelled Kabul, and the other side effectively occupied the city area itself. What I saw in the work of the Red Cross was incredible bravery and spirit. They were working three eight-hour shifts, 24/7, to try to keep up with the casualties. What we saw was an effort in a country where the rules of war are completely different; you can't change the culture of a country by showing up in a few white four-wheel drives.

It's one thing to ratify these things and another thing to actually respect the fundamental elements, which aren't hard to understand, about how we treat a captured prisoner and how we deal with prisoners of war—women and children caught in the crossfire—and institutions, like religious and cultural institutions and schools. It's all common sense for us, because Australia has deeply ingrained it in both our military and our society. That work needs to be continued. Democratisation reached a peak in, some would argue, 2006, and we're now seeing many countries that were democracies sliding away from that. That means there's no guarantee that some of these important member states that have ratified this convention will continue to adhere to it. And therein lies the complexity: when everything breaks down and we're in a war-like environment, there's an enormous temptation to do as much damage as possible. That's when the Geneva conventions need to be applied.

What I personally witnessed in Afghanistan was an effort to, as you'd be well aware, exact some retribution on families of combatants when they were at their most vulnerable. Often, when the men were away fighting somewhere else, their families were exposed to this. It wasn't uncommon even after a period of fighting to track down the families as the ex-combatants came back and dished out summary justice overnight, saying, 'We're taking your husband'—or your father—'away tomorrow and that will be it.' And those people did actually disappear. There was also the intolerable situation of combatants coming through a Red Cross hospital and selectively picking out people on the other side and shooting them in their hospital beds. That was something the ICRC staff had to survive. Lastly, of course, there's the very questionable area of a party, sensing there's more good being done to their opposition in the local ICRC hospital, firing mortars and rockets into that hospital compound itself for the purposes of making sure their opponent isn't benefitting more than they are from the provision of ICRC support. Those things are always going to confront us wherever we go in wars of the future.

Wars of the future will also be more complicated. There'll be more contractors and NGOs involved, and they'll be a lot greater challenges around the coordination of these multiple parties and trying to identify who's actually adhering to the convention and who isn't. We saw this situation in Ukraine. We couldn't always be sure who exactly pressed the button, who was responsible for the atrocity. It's of great credit to the international courts that Ukraine, in particular, has led to, at least, some charges being laid in what would otherwise have been an incredibly opaque process. So it's not impossible but it's certainly very complicated, and I'd argue it's going to get more complicated over time. Let's celebrate 70 years, but let us also make sure we can talk about it 70 years from now.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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