Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This particular treaty is a multilateral one. It deals with a new protocol on explosive remnants of war, a protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. It certainly seems to me very positive that the Australian government is moving to sign up to this particular treaty and to be bound by the protocol. The protocol, according to the document that has been tabled, will enter into force on 12 November this year, having recently received the required 20 notifications to the secretary-general of consent to be bound in accordance with the various articles of the convention. It will enter into force for Australia six months after our country’s notification of consent is received, and that will be at the end of the treaties committee’s process, assuming it is recommended and accepted that the proposed action is taken, and I expect that would be the case—certainly at first glance I very much hope it would be the case.

But it is quite apt to examine the obligations here and to note again the positive components and the scope for positive action when countries get together and agree to be bound by protocols that seek, for example, to oblige parties as soon as feasible after the cessation of active hostilities to assess, mark, clear or remove and destroy explosive remnants of war from territory under their control. Parties are also obliged to cooperate where appropriate with other states and regional and international organisations to fulfil this obligation. Parties are obliged to record and retain information on the use or abandonment of explosive ordnance in order to facilitate its post-conflict clearance. On the cessation of active hostilities, state parties are obliged to provide this information to other parties in control of the affected area or to other organisations relevant to clearance obligations.

There are a range of other aspects there, including the protection of humanitarian missions, precautions for the protection of the civilian population and generic preventative measures such as munitions reliability. All, I would suggest, are positive measures in trying to reduce one of the many serious consequences of war. It is a bit hard to overstate the serious consequences of war, but one of the many and perhaps more clear examples of the absurdity of war sometimes are the injuries and deaths that can occur after the cessation of hostilities, just by virtue of unexploded ordnance, uncleared landmines or other remnant weapons.

We have a live example at the moment that is getting coverage in our country in regard to leftover explosive ordnance in the south of Lebanon in that area that has been subject to a conflict. For some reason it has become the new political correctness that if you in any way criticise any action of the Israeli government then you are immediately labelled as a supporter of Hezbollah and global terrorism. Nonetheless I will surge through such attempts at censorship and point out the serious problem of significant amounts of unexploded ordnance and leftover weapons that are exploding and killing Israeli as well as Lebanese people in that area. Most unfortunately, in some respects, it is due to cluster bombs dropped just in the last few days of hostilities, but it is also from mines that have been leftover for longer periods of time that have not been cleared.

It is appropriate to express concern about that. It is appropriate to put public pressure on relevant parties to do more to address that problem. This treaty will not affect it, I would imagine, as I suspect relevant parties are not signing up to it, but it is pleasing that Australia is signing up to it. Part of the benefit of signing up to it is not only holding ourselves honest to these things but giving ourselves greater moral authority to urge other countries and parties to live up to these standards. There is no greater example of innocent people being killed than being killed by explosions of leftover weapons and unexploded ordnance. I really would hope this provides a mechanism for more action in this area.

Question agreed to.