House Hansard 16-Oct-2006 Page 45

Speech

Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (5.10 p.m.)—I move:

That this House:

(1)

notes:

(a)

the Parliament’s and the Government’s abhorrence of suicide terrorism as a tool of any organisation or movement;

(b)

the global prevalence of suicide terrorism as the most lethal method of murder for many terrorist groups;

(c)

the critical roles that actors other than the perpetrators play in the process, providing incitement through:

(i): education of youth;
(ii): statements and encouragement by religious and political leaders; and
(iii): inflammatory materials broadcast by media outlets and made available on Internet websites; and

(d)

the vital necessity of defining terrorism for the purpose of international criminal law, and particularly suicide terrorism; and

(e)

the benefits for international law enforcement and Australia’s national security in establishing such a multilateral enforcement framework; and

(2)

calls on the Government to:

(a)

promote initiatives for the drafting of an International Convention on Suicide Terrorism, which would:

(i): provide a definition of suicide terrorism, including the meaning of the word ‘terrorism’; and
(ii): create an offence of suicide terrorism; and

(b)

ensure that the content of such an offence would:

(i): be defined as a ‘crime against humanity’, attracting universal jurisdiction and the international legal consequences associated with such status;
(ii): include ‘direct and public incitement to commit suicide terrorism’ as a punishable offence by the same criteria as incitement under Article 3(c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention);
(iii): be punishable against constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals in the same form as Article 4 of the Genocide Convention;
(iv): include a provision requiring mandatory enactment of the offence in the domestic jurisdiction of contracting parties, in the same form as Article 5 of the Genocide Convention; and
(v): exclude the defence of political crimes for the offence, in the same form as Article 7 of the Genocide Convention; and

(c)

commit to sponsoring a completed Convention, and actively promoting its adoption by the international community.

Can I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Dr Shimon Samuels, the Director for International Liaison of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre based in Paris.

This motion seeks to address a critical gap within the international legal framework to deal with suicide terrorism. The threat is distinct and immediate. Suicide terrorism attacks have sharply increased over the last two decades, from an average of three per year in the 1980s to 150 attacks in 2004. Indeed, new figures based on Iraq indicate one attack on average each and every day. These figures are startling and the associated fatality level is also appallingly high. Although representing just three per cent of overall terrorist events between 1980 and 2003, they have accounted for a massive 48 per cent of all deaths from suicide incidents. This makes them, effectively—to adopt a macabre figure—12 times deadlier or more effective than any other form of terrorism.

Suicide terrorism has therefore become the deadliest challenge in the global struggle against terrorism. And the struggle is truly global, with this particularly abhorrent form of violence being experienced across Europe, Africa, the Middle East and, increasingly, in our very own region. The carnage wreaked by both waves of bombings in Bali, for instance, was a clear message to Australians that we cannot simply leave this matter for others to fix; it is an enormous challenge that confronts us all. A coordinated international response is necessary, and an international convention would unquestionably enormously strengthen the international response.

It is most unsatisfactory that there remains uncertainty as to whether the act of suicide terrorism is covered under the crimes against humanity, and it is also unclear whether the act can be regarded as a war crime. Clearly there should be no ambiguity. It is also important that international and domestic law is framed to attack all vital components in the chain of responsibility. It is unacceptable that there is no international legal sanction for those who incite the perpetrators of suicide attacks.

A continuous and oppressive environment of indoctrination must be created before a human being will voluntarily kill themselves in order to kill innocent civilians. This indoctrination is done through a network of media, political and educational encouragement. The most obvious examples are already well known, with incitement to commit suicide terrorism by extremist leaders in Iran and encouragement to martyrdom in many educational resources for children across the Middle East, which I have actually seen.

The extent to which incitement is responsible for terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region is also a major concern for Australia. Indonesia’s most wanted terrorist, Noordin Mohammed Top, relied heavily on a network of fanatics who were alumni of the Jemaah Islamiah pesantrens, which are religious boarding schools, throughout Indonesia. A large proportion of the bombers, planners and organisers of the terrorist attacks on the Marriott Hotel, the Australian Embassy and the second attacks in Bali were lecturers, teachers or students of both of these schools.

Defining incitement as a crime of universal jurisdiction would force signatories to either prosecute or extradite the perpetrators. It would also add to the growing body of law that is slowly defining the overall crime of terrorism. Alongside the new convention on nuclear terrorism, a convention dealing with suicide terrorism would clarify definitional issues associated with the comprehensive convention against terrorism that is currently being negotiated at the United Nations—and I recently read an excellent speech, made to the United Nations General Assembly by my friend and colleague the member for Denison, promoting the cause of an international treaty against terrorism. This would be an important step—a building block, if you like—towards achieving that comprehensive treaty. I commend this motion to the House and urge the government to act on it as swiftly as possible.

Interjection

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded?

Interjection

Mr Hayes—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.