David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Let me try to take you through. There are a few questions in that, so let me try to deal with them sequentially. Firstly, with respect to the convention, you made the point that we have not yet lobbied, for want of a better word, the United States. My understanding is that that is right, but I guess it is noteworthy that this bill represents the ratification of the convention and, until this bill has been passed, the obligations of the convention do not apply. I guess they will apply thereafter—well, I hope they will. I trust the bill will be passed. At least tonight, I do not think that you are able to say that Australia has not lived up to that part of its obligations under the convention.

In terms of paragraphs 1 and 2, and indeed 3 and 4, of article 21, I guess our view is that we have interpreted the convention narrowly. Indeed, the proof of that is the fact that we have used the very language of the convention in the bill. Thirdly, to your point, 'Why bother signing it?' I think the answer to that is very plain. Australia is signing this convention and declaring its commitment to not stockpile, use, deploy and so forth these weapons. We are joining that body in the international community that says that these weapons are unacceptable. But there are obviously nations—and there are many—who have not yet reached that conclusion and our resolve is not yet matched by their resolve. What this bill does and what we have done in this debate is make clear how Australia will deport itself—and I do not think that a nothing, Senator. I think that is an issue of some significance, and the fact that we cannot speak for the actions of other sovereign nations, whether they be the United States, Russia, China, Iran or whatever, should be no surprise to anyone. I believe that Australia is standing behind this convention, and having it apply to itself and its military operations is of importance.