Minister how real is the threat of biological weapons to Australia?

Well it can’t be dismissed. We know that there are terrorists and terrorist organisations that are prepared to use them if they get the opportunity and of course as the bio-technology agenda expands and various toxins and pathogens become more widely available, so does the increasing chance of these… of what’s been developed for good public purpose, falling into the hands of those who would misuse them.

Any particular group that you are targeting?

No this is a conference on bringing together countries within South East Asia in particular to work with us because we all see the risk associated with bio-terrorism. It’s to encourage countries within the region to develop effective national laws to combat it, to better control the laboratories that deal with the legal use of these toxins and pathogens and also to develop contemporary codes of conduct for the scientists who develop these pathogens.

What changes to the legislation in Australia are you considering to tighten the control of biological materials?

Well we are looking at that at the moment. We believe that if we ask others within the region to do more it is important that we also look at our own legislation which we’ve had now for a long time, since the 1970s. We also look at our administrative practices. You may know from other recent conferences we’re particularly interested in dual-use materials and the biotechnology revolution has meant that so many new products are coming on to the market and they are capable of being misused and they could potentially be passed to somebody who intends to use them for an evil purpose and we must ensure that our administrative procedures are best able to avoid that occurring.

So how can our legislation be tightened then from what was originally set down in the 1970s?

Well that’s what we’re looking at the moment. We haven’t made a determination on that, we’re simply reviewing the legislation to see whether there are ways in which it can be tightened. What’s changed is that when the legislation was developed we were really looking at States misusing these bio-technological products, now we are principally looking at them being misused by a non-State player, by a terrorist. So it’s the inadvertent transfer from the State or from the private sector to a terrorist or terrorist organisation.

The significance of this happening at the moment, beside from the proliferation networks that have already been uncovered, are there other networks that the Government’s aware of?

Well no, we suspect that there are many networks and we now know a lot more about the terrorist networks in this region than we knew a few years ago. Some of those that we know of, we know have been interested in bio-technology – in other words bio-terrorism. I have no doubt at all that there are others that we don’t know of.

What about the code of conduct for scientists? How will that be reviewed and changed?

Well what we’re principally talking about is introducing these codes within the region. The biotechnology revolution is well established within the region as a whole and for good purposes - great benefits for human kind come from this revolution - but we want to ensure that scientists throughout the region understand the sort of moral obligations that we believe through various codes that have been developed within universities, within States, in Australia, that Australian scientists well understand and the dangers that are attached to it.

Do you think countries in the region have both the resources and the will to put in place these controls?

They have the political will, I think that’s been shown, and events of recent years have reinforced in their minds the risks. They are as much, if not more threatened, than we are because you might say that our law enforcement in some ways is better developed, our protections are better developed. But they don’t always have the resources and really this workshop here is to build capability, it’s to bring the lawyers together to talk about what sort of laws for example we have in Australia; to bring scientists together to talk about the codes that we were speaking of; to talk about how laboratories can be better protected; what needs to be guarded against; what particular pathogens and toxins are more likely to be misused through inadvertent dual use. So they have the will, they now need to build the capability and that’s what this workshop is designed to do – to use Australian experiences to help build capability in the region which helps secure the regional States and through them help secure us.

Senator Hill, just quickly on another matter, can you shed any light on the threats to Australians in Aceh? There seems to be some confusion, the Prime Minister is saying those threats are real by the militants there, yet Indonesia and now it seems the U.S. are casting doubt on that information.

Well we’ve always taken the attitude that if information that comes to our attention that we believe is relevant to the safety of Australians we have a clear moral obligation to make that public. And that’s what we did in this instance. It would be horrendous if an awful event occurred and we had some knowledge and we hadn’t warned Australians. So as soon as we get information, we have to obviously assess that we believe it’s credible, that relates to the safety or potential safety of Australians then we make it public and then those in effect on the front line in the very important aid works being done in Aceh can take that into account in relation to their own personal safety. So what we’ve said to them is keep close to those who have a responsibility to protect you, in that instance the Indonesian military and Indonesian police; follow the security codes that have been developed; but if you’re doing good works as an individual and basically up there without any of that protection then you should consider coming home because the risk might not be worth it.

So are you concerned though that the Indonesian Government is not taking this threat that the Australian Government considers credible, they’re not taking it seriously?

Well we’re very happy with the force protection that we’ve received from TNI, the Indonesian military, and the cooperation and support we’ve received from the Indonesian Police – and we believe that will continue. Whether at a political level matters are interpreted in the same way I’m not sure. But the important thing is… I’m confident that Indonesia takes the issue seriously because it is not only a threat of course to Australians but it can be a threat to Indonesians, and of course in recent bombings it has been the Indonesians that have lost their lives rather than the westerners against whom the bombs were principally directed.

After East Timor can the Indonesian military be trusted to safeguard Australian lives?

We believe so. We’re very pleased with the cooperation we’ve had from TNI and the force protection that they’ve provided in Aceh in addressing the tsunami. They’re relationship has been first class, it’s been practical and effective and we’re very pleased with the way it’s developed.

Are you surprised the U.S. doesn’t have the same information as Australia?

Well I can’t speak for the U.S., all I say is…

I’m not asking you to speak for the U.S., are you surprised that they’re discrediting Australia’s information sources about a possible terrorist threat. They’ve raised doubt on the credibility of it? I’m sorry militants attacking Australian workers in Aceh.

All I can really say to you is that when we obtain information that we believe is credible, we accept a moral responsibility to inform Australians as soon as possible, and that’s what we did on this occasion.

Just one final thing, will Australia consider increasing funding to regional countries so they can put in place biological weapons controls?

Yes we would do what ever we can to help them build their protective mechanisms against bio-terrorism because it is not only a threat to them, but it’s a threat to us.

You offered training but what about money grants, specific…

Well it depends what the money, I’m not too sure where you believe this money is to be directed. We talked about helping them develop their national laws and administration, there’s a cost involved in that; helping them develop protection of laboratories and the like; helping develop the protocols for scientists; really following through the Geneva plan of action. We recognise there are capability issues in the region and there are some regional States that are extremely financially stressed, so if we can help them achieve this goal it’s of benefit to them and it’s a benefit to us.

What about the verification agencies, that’s something the Indonesian Ambassador mentioned, the lack of compliance lack of verification, so would you help regional countries set up bodies to actually monitor compliance with the convention?

In terms of their own domestic compliance, if they ask us to assist in that regard we would because as you know under the convention the responsibility is with nation States, those for economic reasons or otherwise who haven’t built the capability to effectively protect against these threats, we see that we have a responsibility to help them; not only because we want to help them as friends and neighbors, but also because as we said the threat isn’t limited by State borders it becomes a threat to others across borders which includes us.

How quickly do you think the changes that have been discussed today need to be implemented?

I think the more we can do as quickly as possible the better. As I said the Biological Warfare Convention really focused on a threat between States, and that has been effectively answered, that’s not the real issue we now face. The real issue we now face is pathogens or toxins, probably coming from a private sector laboratory which otherwise is doing good work, inadvertently being passed to a third party that has some evil intent. It’s very difficult to guard and protect against that and I think the problem will grow as the years go by, I don’t think this is a short term issue. So the more we can build in safeguards at this early stage and cooperate with neighboring States to ensure they have the most effective safeguards possible, the better it is for them and for us.

ENDS