Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I go to the convention's article 21, which has been referred to by Senator Feeney, and to its clauses 3 and 4. Article 21(3) states:

… Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention—

and that is the general prohibition of cost of munitions—

and in accordance with international law, States Parties, their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.

My question to Senator Feeney and, by extension, to the Attorney-General's Department is: how does the government interpret that? Does it interpret that you can engage in military cooperation with a party that is not a party to this convention in circumstances where that party is using cluster munitions? But, in terms of how I read the primary aims of this very convention—the key aims, being the fundamental premise of this convention—what they mean is that you can have military cooperation with a party that is not a party to the convention as long as that party is not engaging in the use of cluster munitions. That seems to be an interpretation that would be quite reasonable in the circumstances. So that is a key issue as to the basis of the advice that the government has received in relation to this bill. How does it interpret that particular clause, which I think is fundamental to the shaping of this bill?