Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Page: 664

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (10:26): I rise to support the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Last year, the British Home Secretary, Theresa May, told the Washington Council on Foreign Relations that in the fight against extremism:

Success will depend on balancing the near and long term objectives. Repeated tactical success will not of itself assure us of strategic victory. We must extend the rule of law; address the ideological challenge; harness and not be harmed by technology; and preserve our borders in what will surely remain a period of instability.

The Home Secretary's prescription is a very good one. It is one we should share, and I believe we do. Despite the benefits of technology, there are those who would seek to manipulate science and use it against their fellow human beings for their own nefarious and evil purposes. Radical extremists have vowed to go to any lengths in the name of their cause. That includes unleashing biological or nuclear weapons. Amongst them, al-Qaeda and the North Caucasus terror groups have made no secret of the fact that they desire nuclear weapons and have attempted to acquire them. There is evidence that prior to September 11 al-Qaeda operatives cased American nuclear reactor facilities but ruled out sabotage because of the tight security and reinforced fences at those sites.

A decade on, security experts warn that nuclear terrorism remains a real and urgent threat. As more countries embark on their own nuclear programs, this issue must be managed with a watchful eye both at home and abroad. Nuclear material that could be used for weaponry is not inaccessible. Nearly 2,000 metric tonnes of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium separated from spent fuel is stockpiled across the world. It exists in hundreds of buildings and bunkers across more than 30 countries. A quarter of those nations are plagued by corruption and political and financial instability, posing grave concerns over the security of their nuclear reserves. Twenty cases of theft or loss of this material have been recorded by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Other cases have gone unreported. Additional supplies that could be used to make a dirty bomb, like radiological materials used in medicine, can be found at countless other sites.

We do not live our lives in fear, nor do we close our eyes to the world around us. It is critical to be aware of the threats and challenges that face this nation and our allies on the global stage. This bill goes to the heart of the rationale that aims to prevent us from being surprised by the unanticipated and the unimaginable. Last year, researchers from Russia and the United States, two of the world's major nuclear powers, issued a joint assessment warning of the persistent dangers of nuclear terrorism. The joint threat assessment on nuclear terrorism was the product of a year-long partnership between leading authorities on nuclear security from Harvard's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs and the Moscow Institute for US and Canadian studies. The report concludes:

If current approaches toward eliminating the threat are not replaced with a sense of urgency and resolve, the question will become not if but when, and on what scale, the first act of nuclear terrorism occurs.

It named complacency as the primary obstacle to nuclear security. A nuclear attack could take a range of forms. Nuclear weapons could be stolen or acquired on the black market. Perhaps more easily, a crude improvised device or a dirty bomb could be made from stolen materials like uranium or plutonium from spent fuel reserves for civilian research reactors. These scenarios, this study warns, are distressingly plausible.

Sabotaging a nuclear facility is another possibility. I say this as the member for Cook, where the ANSTO facility is in very close proximity to my own residence and those of the neighbouring electorate of Hughes. Thirty countries run reactors that could be potential targets. The report made the point that, whilst Fukushima and Chernobyl were terrible accidents, that same devastation could be triggered by premeditated action.

This report is very grim reading but in order to pre-empt disaster we must consider the worst-case scenarios. To have to contemplate these things is horrific but we do so with the hope that they may never eventuate any further than the dark realms of evil imagination. The assessment argues that, given the potential catastrophic consequences, even a small probability of terrorists getting and detonating a nuclear bomb is enough to justify urgent action to reduce risk. This can be done through tightening the security surrounding nuclear weapons, materials and facilities and expanding intelligence and police operations to foil smuggling and terror plots.

The bill before us today is a vital amendment that moves towards these ends, strengthening the deterrent measures and scope for prosecuting these offences. The convention was a global initiative started by Russia and the United States in 2006. Our Commonwealth legislation already incorporates many of the obligations of the convention. But this bill is important in ensuring that all criminal offences are covered. This amendment will make it a criminal offence to possess, make or use radioactive material or a nuclear emitting or explosive device that can cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment; or to threaten to use radioactive material or demand another person create or use such a device or facility.

This bill does not criminalise the lawful use or possession of radioactive material in fields like medicine, but it does allow stronger prosecution when there is intent to use or make that material available for a prohibited purpose. Whether or not the intended outcome is carried out is irrelevant to the prosecution. These new offences carry a maximum penalty of 20 years jail.

Experts say the nuclear material required for an improvised bomb is small and hard to detect, making it difficult to recover once stolen. For that reason the US-Russia joint threat assessment ruled that the primary focus in reducing risk must be to keep nuclear material and nuclear weapons from being stolen by continually improving our security measures.

This stronger legislation is a critical part of that process. The nuclear terrorism convention does not govern the actions of armed forces during conflicts, so members of the Australian Defence Force could not be prosecuted when acting in connection with national defence or security, as is appropriate.

The sobering reality is that it would be plausible for a terror group with technical expertise to make and detonate a crude nuclear bomb if it could acquire the right materials. We need to ensure that that does not happen. These laws today help to serve that purpose.

While we take the measures proposed in this bill and are supportive it is important to remind ourselves of the other dimensions of our task. Last year we commemorated the 10th anniversary of September 11, a cataclysm that shook our world to its very foundations. We have recovered but we will never forget. We have supported our allies in their time of great need and joined the fight and have been the direct victims of terrorist activities ourselves, most notably in Bali. We have drawn strength from the resilience of those who we have stood by—their determination and above all their further commitment to the defence of the democratic values we share. That practical support continues to this day at the cost of Australian lives.

Home-grown terrorism is one of the principal threats facing the United States and the United Kingdom today. In Australia we have been well served by an immigration program that has mitigated these threats more so than most nations, but we must remain vigilant. Australia's immigration program was designed with stringent security tests and character provisions in a bid to safeguard our people and our values. We have sought to consolidate and uphold these provisions as time has passed and contexts have changed. But there is an ever-present need to be watchful. To maintain the integrity of our immigration system we need to adopt a risk based approach to our borders and ensure that our scarce resources are well focused on targeting the threat. The Gillard government's failed border protection policies have compromised these resources and undermined the ability of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to undertake this core task, which is to maintain the integrity of our immigration program.

We must also remember that the friend of home-grown terrorism is cultural exclusion and disengagement. We must have an expectation of participation and engagement with respect to all who live in our society, and society must encourage that participation. In fact, we should insist upon it. We cannot allow a segregationist agenda to take hold under the banner of cultural tolerance. Cultural diversity is an asset for any nation that chooses to embrace it within the framework of shared values, strong borders, the rule of the law and robust institutions. By contrast, cultural division is a curse on any society and is the recruiting ground for extremism and home-grown terrorism.

The US-Russia report reminds us that nuclear terrorism should also be considered within a policy framework of the broader phenomenon of terrorism and extremism. The authors note that Al-Qaeda and other groups draw motivation for the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction from the belief that escalating the conflict by inflicting mass casualties is necessary to win a perceived clash of civilisations between Islam and the West.

We must be very wary of allowing state sponsors of radicalism and extremism to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been significantly undermined by North Korea, the first nation to withdraw from the treaty and test nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council has passed five legally binding resolutions, demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program, to no effect.

The 2010 report to congress, by the Director of National Intelligence, made the assessment:

Iran probably has the capability to produce some biological warfare agents … for offensive purposes, if it made the decision to do so.

The Middle East and North Africa continue to experience a time of great upheaval. It is an opportunity for renewal, but there is a lurking danger in their present vulnerability.

This is a volatile time—the fall of the Tunisian regime, in January; the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, in February; the death of Gaddafi in Libya; and months of rebel uprisings, airstrikes, bloodshed, protests and violence which gripped Bahrain, Morocco and Algeria. Syria has been suspended from the Arab League, caught in a cycle of violence, as it hurtles down the road to civil war. In the chaos, evil can prosper and our enemies can prevail. We must be ever watchful. The joint threat assessment noted that, whilst al-Qaeda has been drastically disrupted since 2001, there remain very few operatives who would have the skills to organise or orchestrate a nuclear attack. Collaboration with other extremist groups or networks is not out of the question.

There is a chance for these nations to cement fundamental human rights in the societies they rebuild. We cling to the hope that, when the dust settles, a new era can emerge where religious expression and difference is celebrated, not condemned, and the voices of all are heard and valued. However, the experience of the Copts in today's Egypt is not a good omen. Religious extremism, intolerance and hate must not be allowed to fill the vacuum under the guise of superficial democracy where it will consume, destroy and surely spread. We should be careful not to embrace these new regimes and be too eager to appease, as the language of some world leaders could be interpreted, particularly towards the Muslim brotherhood. These regimes could prove to be even more dangerous than the ones they replace, both to their own citizens, to the way of life we in this nation value, to our own nation and its security and those of our allies. We must remain eternally vigilant. The light in our watchtower must never go out.