John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, on September 11, many members of the Senate will again have their thoughts turned to the causes and effects of terrorism. A key to terrorism being able to flourish has been nation state sponsorship or inaction to prevent terrorist training occurring within their territory. It is pleasing that the number of nation states who are willing to tolerate terrorist preparation within their boundaries has declined in the last few years.

There is no doubt that Afghanistan was the worst of the rogue states and that the military action taken to oust the Taliban was justified. The job, however, is not yet done. In some ways the conflict in Iraq lessened the efforts in Afghanistan. The task ahead is complex as Afghanistan has proved as difficult to control and administer as at any time in its history.

One massive disappointment has been the explosion in opium cultivation in the last two years. In 2006, Afghanistan will supply 92 per cent of the world’s opium. According to a United Nations report, poppy cultivation will increase by 59 per cent in 2006. This means that in the last two years the total area under poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has risen by 162 per cent. This production will exceed global consumption by 30 per cent.

All this increases the long-term threat to Australia being used as a dumping ground for the excess heroin that will be produced from that opium crop. What is the Australian government’s reaction to this? Judging from Senator Ellison’s response to Senator Ray’s question last Thursday, it seems that it is callous indifference. Firstly, Senator Ellison indicated that overwhelming importation of heroin to Australia is derived from the Golden Triangle, so there is no immediate threat to Australia. What about the rest of the world? It is estimated that over 100,000 people die each year from overdoses from narcotics derived from Afghanistan. Senator Ellison was further asked what action the Australian government had taken to prevent this explosion of opium growing in Afghanistan, and that part of the question was ignored.

It is inconceivable that Australia is not helping in some way along with the rest of the international community. But, of course, if we were helping, the minister would then have to explain why such help was ineffective. It is clear that the drug threat can best be dealt with by interdiction, domestic law enforcement, education and rehabilitation, but nothing beats cutting it off at the source.

At the moment, the United States, many NATO countries, Australia and other nations have troops on the ground fighting for a democratic and terrorist-free Afghanistan, yet at the same time there has been an explosion in poppy cultivation. Of course, the minister’s indifference can be explained—there are no votes in it. All that proselytising and propaganda from the minister about drug busts are meant to garner votes. Time after time we hear criticism of the federal opposition or of state governments—it is a real example of the blame game—but when drug hauls and arrests are made Senator Ellison is in the front line, claiming the credit. However, he is nowhere to be found when stories of rampant drug use are exposed. It would be nice if, just for once, the minister put the national interest ahead of his political interest. He glibly mouths platitudes about bipartisanship while doing everything he can to be divisive and to invoke wedge politics.

Let us look at Senator Ellison’s record in question time. In the last 12 months he has answered six questions from the government side all on the same subject and all worded virtually identically. In September 2005, Senator Payne asked in part:

Will the minister update the Senate on the Australian government’s strong commitment to the fight against drugs?

In November 2005, Senator Humphries asked:

Will the minister update the Senate on the role of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies in the fight against drugs?

In February 2006, in a variation on a theme, Senator Ferris asked in part about:

... the success of our law enforcement and border protection agencies in keeping dangerous illicit drugs off our streets.

In March 2006, Senator Fierravanti-Wells asked:

Will the minister update the Senate on the Australian government’s commitment to the fight against illicit drugs?

In June 2006, Senator Payne again asked in part:

Will the minister update the Senate on the Australian government’s commitment to the fight against illicit drugs?

Finally, in August 2006, Senator Trood asked in part:

Will the minister update the Senate on the Australian government’s commitment to the fight against illicit drugs?

So we can expect on a monthly basis to hear the Minister for Justice and Customs boasting about his efforts in fighting illicit drugs and to hear about the complicity of everyone else in failing to do so. The question is: which government backbench senator will be the next patsy to ask exactly the same question to exactly the same minister?

Another clear pattern in Senator Ellison’s answers are the attacks on the opposition and Mr Beazley. His last four answers fitted that mould. It is true to say that drugs are an emotive issue and are clearly perceived by Senator Ellison as a vote winner. So, if you see an opportunity to distort the views of your political opponents, go for it! What a quintessential, Western Australian Liberal Party tactic that is! Senator Ellison, though, has far less confidence and far less capacity when he is asked a question that he is not aware of, that he has not been given notice of and for which he has not been provided with a prepared answer. Having struggled to answer Senator Ray’s question last Thursday, he opted to go the political route again. In his supplementary answer, he said that the question:

... implied that the Australian defence forces were propping up a government which was behind the trafficking and production of illicit drugs.

Mr President, not even the most aberrant redneck could have interpreted Senator Ray’s question as implying that, but this was just to cover up an even more grotesque allegation Senator Ellison made in his response to the primary question. He said:

... I totally reject that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force are protecting opium growers and that they are protecting the drug suppliers out of Afghanistan.

A serious question was raised, and what did we get in response from Senator Ellison? A grievous smear. The opposition nevertheless appreciates that Senator Ellison gave a qualified withdrawal of his statements at the commencement of the sitting of the Senate earlier today. This would have been best done last Thursday, but it has been done after due reflection.