Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. I have got the transcript here and the department at the time did take the question on notice. I have the answer in front of me, but in no way would I describe it as definitive. So I look forward to the minister's provision of an answer. No doubt you will be aware of why I am pursuing this line of questioning. The US does not treat these weapons as exotic or extraordinary; they are standard part of kit a little bit like depleted uranium, and I guess the ADF use that in the same way. We tried it and we decided that we wanted nothing to do with it, but we still work very closely with military forces that do, and I guess we agree to disagree as to the indiscriminate nature of weapons of that kind. But here for me is a very, very important case of what we mean when we flip the word 'interoperability' around. What it means is that the Australian government can collaborate closely with forces using these weapons that we are seeking to ban. I guess the threshold question that we are here to debate tonight is: how close or how distant does the ADF have to be before it meets the objective of the treaty?

To take a slightly different tack, one of our positive obligations under the text of the treaty is that we are meant to be out now advocating that the military forces around the world, including our allies who use these weapons, stand them down. I think the minister gave me the example of the United States and France as those that will transit Australia, so let us start with them. Can the minister provide us with any evidence of what the Australian government has done to persuade the US to cease deployment of cluster weapons?