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

First things first, perhaps, Senator. I do have some preliminary information for you on that last point, so let me move directly to that. Please regard this as a preliminary response taken on notice. We may come back to you with further particulars. What I have for you as of this moment concerns the provision by Australia of air support to the United States during the 2003 Iraq conflict. I firstly note that the following information was provided by the Department of Defence in response to a question by Senator Ludlam during the 2011 budget estimates hearings, and so I guess I might be about to repeat information you have already received on notice as a consequence of those estimates hearings.

In 2003 Defence was aware that the US and other coalition partners had cluster munitions and that it was possible these would be used during combat operations in Iraq. While the use of munitions by Australia's coalition partners was subject to general international humanitarian law considerations, the use of cluster munitions was not prohibited at that time. The Australian Defence Force provided a range of air capability during that operation. This included FA18 Hornet aircraft in the air combat patrol and strike missions, AP3C Orions conducting maritime patrol and surveillance, C130 Hercules providing intratheatre airlift and the B707 conducting strategic lift. Australia does not possess operational stocks of cluster munitions and Australian FAA18 aircraft did not use cluster munitions in Iraq.

I also have a preliminary response regarding your question about which weapons systems and on which platforms the United States military deploys cluster munitions. The government's response is that the Australian government does not comment on other government's specific military capabilities.

Having said that, I did note in that open source document from the Congressional Research Service I cited earlier today that there was some analysis by the US Congress on that very question. I will happily pass Senator Ludlam a copy of that. In essence I think it said that every single US airframe might be applied to the task. I will get that to him when I find it.

I might briefly respond to some of the more, dare I say it, political points that Senator Ludlam made before he asked those two specific questions of me. Senator Ludlam has obviously heard from me on several occasions about the reasoning behind the Australian government adopting the approach that it has. We will be holding our head high; we are proud of the fact that we are supporting the convention. We believe it is an important step forward for the international community and we will be proud to be a part of it. For the reasons I have already articulated I think any philosophy that says we would rather have 100 per cent of nothing than 80 per cent of something is misconceived, and, if there are those organisations that now say the convention would be better off not going ahead, I guess all I would say to them is that this is a constructive, practical and real way forward and I fear the alternative strategy would lead us to achieving nothing whatsoever.