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

I think we are unfortunately going around in circles a little. I have addressed myself to that question previously: I am not going to embark, and I think it would be foolhardy for any government to embark, on a process where we applied our current obligations to military operations that occurred some nine years in the past. I do not think that serves any useful purpose.

As for Senator Ludlam's contention that the interoperability provision undermines the convention, of course the government rejects that. We say the bill is utterly consistent with the convention, and in fact we have used the language of the convention in crucial places inside the bill so that it conforms precisely with the convention and its intent. Again I repeat that we say the interoperability provision means that we can proudly stand behind this convention while retaining our alliance relationship with the United States. If his proposition were to be advanced then ultimately it would mean that Australia would have to choose between the convention and the US alliance. That is a nonsense.

Senator Ludlam likes to talk about the US military—that is his cause celebre when considering this bill—but I remind him that the United States as I understand it has not used cluster munitions since 2003, and that is not a boast that other powers can make. The United States does not stand alone in this space and I invite Senator Ludlam to have a wider field of vision. Australia's alliance relationship with the United States should be but one of many facets that deserve his attention.