Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this bill because it is an important bill. When the government has a position which the opposition fails to support, it is entirely appropriate for government members to defend the government’s position. The bottom line is that 12 million Iraqis went to vote at the elections, and you cannot have a situation where the opposition says to the government, ‘No, that’s not good enough.’ Twelve million Iraqis went to vote: that is absolutely good enough for this country. We can sit here and enjoy democracy, but why can’t other people? And that goes to the heart of what we are all about.

Why this bill is important is that it is all about global security, it is all about global energy and these issues are tied together. It is, in fact, quite relevant that the shadow foreign minister spoke about Iraq and the Prime Minister’s presentation last night, because it goes to the status of the US in the world and to the credibility of the US’s position in world affairs. For the United States to be compelled to withdraw from Iraq in the current climate would send the absolute wrong message. I would suggest that those sitting opposite—who claim to have the exclusive monopoly on wisdom in foreign affairs and in international relations—do some basic 101 studies and bone up on foreign affairs, because they have absolutely no idea whatsoever.

I am disappointed that the member for Melbourne Ports, of all people in the opposition, would not stand shoulder to shoulder with the government in relation to a position that tries to bring about the democratic vote in a country in the Middle East where people want to have the sovereign right to determine their own future. And what is wrong with that? Just as the people of North Korea absolutely want to be able to determine their own future—what is wrong with that? It is a terrific position for us to enjoy in this part of the world. Why can’t we be part of a coalition to bring about freedom around the world? Why can’t we be part of that? I am just so disappointed. Of all members of the opposition, the member for Melbourne Ports in particular goes about trying to defend freedom for this part of the world but not for that part of the world—it is absolutely absurd.

In relation to this important bill, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT, was negotiated in the mid-1960s between the United States, the Soviet Union and the 18-nation committee on disarmament. We all know that the NPT came into force in 1970, and our country became a party to it in January 1973. There are some 189 states that have signed on to the treaty. It is an international agreement that we very strongly respect and that we are very strongly part of promoting. As part of our commitment to the treaty, Australia also signed a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1974. As a signatory to the treaty, Australia has an obligation—as do all member states, of course—not to transfer nuclear weapons and not to assist any non nuclear weapons state to manufacture or to acquire such weapons or devices. The treaty also outlines that, in the case of a non nuclear weapons state like Australia, there is a responsibility not to receive or manufacture nuclear weapons, and to apply International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to all nuclear activities carried out within our borders.

Australia also has international obligations to safeguard nuclear material under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The convention sets standards for the international transport of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes. It also defines serious offences involving nuclear materials, including the receipt, possession, use, transfer, alteration, disposal or dispersal of nuclear material without lawful authority or making a threat to use nuclear material to cause death or serious injury to any person, or substantial property damage. Australia’s obligation and that of other signatories to the convention is to make those offences enforceable in their domestic law.

I will make a few comments on the current legislative framework for nonproliferation. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 gives legislative effect to Australia’s obligations under the NPT and the physical protection convention. The act primarily provides for a system of permits for the possession and transport of nuclear material, the establishment of a facility and the communication of information relating to nuclear technology. The act also enshrines a number of offences and their punishments in Australian law including those relating to the nonproliferation of nuclear material such as the possession of nuclear material without a permit, a breach of duty to ensure the security of nuclear technology, the communication of unauthorised information, establishing a nuclear facility without a permit and accessing without a permit areas which are restricted. Offences relating to the physical protection of nuclear material include stealing nuclear material, demanding nuclear material by threats, the use of nuclear material causing injury to persons or damage to property and threatening to use nuclear material.

I turn to the specifics of the bill. I will not go into the changes to the physical protection convention, because they are quite numerous, but I will talk about the changes that this bill makes to the amendments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 to implement Australia’s international obligations as a country that is absolutely committed to the nonproliferation of nuclear material. This bill brings Australian law into line with our commitments as a party to the NPT, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards agreement and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The bill will also demonstrate Australia’s commitment to the physical security of nuclear facilities, material and information.

Firstly, the bill will introduce three new offences under the safeguards act relating to decommissioning a nuclear facility without a permit, trafficking nuclear material and interfering with the operation of a nuclear facility. Secondly, it will make the penalties for the most serious offences in the safeguards act consistent with penalties under comparable Commonwealth non-proliferation legislation. Thirdly, it will extend the geographical jurisdiction for various non-proliferation offences in the safeguards act. The extended geographical jurisdiction allows for Australian citizens residing overseas to be imprisoned if found guilty of these very serious offences. Lastly, the bill will also regulate, with respect to nuclear safeguards, the decommissioning of a nuclear facility to ensure that Australia is able to meet its international obligations to the IAEA.

I think a good way to stress the gravity and importance of this bill is to use the example of North Korea and South Korea. The Korean peninsula is one of the most sensitive geopolitical and security areas in our region. I had the very great privilege last year to be invited by the South Korean government to visit South Korea. I also had the very special opportunity to visit the demilitarised zone, which, as everyone would know, separates North and South Korea. It was a profound experience and one which will certainly live in my memory for a very long time. It did inspire me to take a far deeper interest in the issues of the Korean peninsula and in the relationship between the north and the south in particular.

As members who follow foreign policy and international relations with interest would know, North Korea withdrew from the NPT in January 2003. In October 2003 North Korea declared that it had completed processing spent fuel rods in order to obtain the material used in the production of nuclear weapons. Then in February 2005 the North Korean regime openly declared that it had actually manufactured nuclear weapons. We all know that in October 2006 North Korea successfully detonated a nuclear device, and that came as a tremendous shock to all of us—not only to the people of Asia but also to those of us in this country.

The blast was estimated to have had an explosive force of less than one kiloton. The precise nature of the North Korean nuclear program probably is still largely unknown given the absolute secrecy of that regime. But, more than the measure of explosive force, the key impact of that test was a frightening wake-up call to the democracies of the world and to countries like Australia that the sheer potential for something catastrophic in our times and in our part of the world still exists. We must, more than ever, be vigilant about our global security and our global activities that prevent something catastrophic taking place, such as a wider regional conflict that might bring in countries like North Korea to react in the worst possible fashion, including exploding further nuclear weapons if they have them.

As a signatory to the joint declaration on the Korean armistice in 1953, our country would probably have some kind of obligation to be part of a wider solution to such a terrible conflict. It is incumbent on all of us at this time, before such a disaster comes our way, to be as vigilant as possible and to recognise that North Korea remains a serious threat to global peace and security. The progress that has been made in recent weeks with the United States Ambassador, Christopher Hill, and his counterparts in the six-party talks is to be commended. However, I read a couple of days ago with some disappointment that there may be some difficulties with those talks continuing as successfully as seems to have been indicated in the previous few weeks.

We wish that North Korea and South Korea could perhaps one day unify in peace and security. Unfortunately, at this point in time, North Korea’s successful nuclear test last year continues to cause immense anxiety and concern, not just for us here in Australia but also for the immediate neighbours of North Korea.

One of the results has been to bring into the public domain conversation about whether countries like Japan and South Korea would go towards nuclear protection in an absolutely worst-case scenario. All of us would be aware that Japan remains under the protection of the US security umbrella, as does South Korea. But that is why this bill is so important and this architecture, the NPT architecture, is so important to all of us and that we are able to implement it, we are able to enforce it is much as is possible. Without these kinds of agreements, we really do not have a reference point in which to deal with countries like North Korea.

I want to very strongly commend the bill to parliament. I know that, as we look across the world, particularly to the Middle East, there are worrying signs that other states might be looking to acquire such devices. All of us, with our very best intentions and our very best faith in those with the capacities to prevent that, wish that that would happen.

On the media reports that suggest progress has been made in the six-party talks, if they have any substance to them, that would be a huge setback and would be of immense disappointment. I would hope very much that the North Korean regime would not again waver in terms of its commitment to trying to come to some sort of solution, particularly with the influence the Chinese might be able to bring to bear on North Korea’s future conduct.

I will end my remarks with some thoughts from the former US Deputy Secretary of State, Rich Armitage, who came out to Australia last year and made some comments about things getting done in global politics. He made reference to the fact that active participation in international relations by the United States was still vital to the global peace and security of the world, that the United States certainly was not taking its eyes off what was happening in our part of the world and that, at the end of the day, nothing very meaningful could take place in any part of the world without the involvement of the United States. I think that those comments have some significant merit.

This bill is a strong step in the right direction, reaffirming our commitment to non-proliferation, and I hope that it encourages other countries to be equally committed to this very worthy endeavour. The world must stand strong and united against the threat of the spread of nuclear weapons. We all know that we live in very challenging times and that countries like Australia have an immensely important role to play commensurate with our size and our economic strength.

See this speech in context