Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for introducing this very serious and important motion. I strongly support the motion that this House affirms its support for the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world, and its support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I also take this opportunity to make a few remarks about Australia's relationship with nonproliferation efforts and, in the context of this motion, to discuss the important work that the International Committee of the Red Cross has been doing.

Australia has long been a very tireless worker on the issue of nonproliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, developed the nonproliferation treaty as the world recognised that, following what had occurred in World War II and with the increasingly tense situation developing between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a strong collaborative effort was required to protect the future of our world. As the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the NPT, came into force in 1970, Australia set about ratifying the treaty, and we did so in 1973. I note the very significant work that the IAEA does in the areas of not only nonproliferation but also disarmament in general and the manageable use of nuclear research for peaceful purposes.

While Australia certainly could not be considered to be a nuclear power we do utilise nuclear technology for research purposes—for example, at the Lucas Heights research reactor in New South Wales. Domestically, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office enforces our standards and facilitates IAEA activities in this country. I commend that office for carrying out the more practical concerns of today's motion. In our own country the safe utilisation of this technology is, of course, a serious issue that we must always consider for the future safety of all Australians.

The sentiment among the vast majority of nations is against the threat or use of nuclear weaponry. This has been increasing for some time. The International Court of Justice handed down the decision in 1994:

There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

Furthermore, in 2007 the Five-Point Plan on Nuclear Disarmament was submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, which recognises the abhorrence of nuclear war. This global interest in nuclear disarmament continues to grow, with the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom reaffirming their responsibility to take concrete and credible steps towards irreversible disarmament at a United Nations conference on nuclear weapons in May 2010. More recently, as this motion notes, the United States and Russia ratified the measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, New START, in February 2011. We have also seen further important treaties and bilateral cooperation between Australia and Japan on this issue. Again, as this motion states, I strongly support the consensus views expressed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in Report 106: Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

Unfortunately, in 2012, there are ongoing significant political and military issues occurring from South America to South-East Asia. There is also significant political unrest in the Middle East, with some countries there having obtained or seeking to obtain a nuclear arsenal. Whilst Australia has maintained on an international diplomatic level our commitment to a nuclear-free Iran, the IAEA is in fact unable to verify whether their nuclear arrangements are indeed peaceful. In many ways, the uncertainty creates more alarm in the region and around the world. I strongly support the call in this motion for continuing efforts to establish a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

Significantly, in our area there are still ongoing attempts at nuclear testing in North Korea. As recently as late April there were more reports of North Korea's plan to conduct a nuclear bomb test. Our world does not want to contemplate nuclear war but, with the problems in Iran, North Korea and other parts of the world, we must have faith that diplomacy can overcome a nuclear threat, as it did during the Cuban missile crisis and as it has attempted to do in North Korea. That is why it must be the resolve of all countries that this issue does not go away, so it is up to world leaders such as Australia to put significant resources into encouraging other countries to join the cause. That is why I support the call for states outside the NPT to join the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states.

I would like to take the opportunity in this chamber to record the very significant contribution from the International Committee of the Red Cross in the area of nonproliferation and to acknowledge their continuing work. On Monday, 7 May, I was fortunate to gather with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to celebrate the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of the Red Cross. As a co-convenor of this group, along with my colleagues Mr Bruce Scott, Mr Graham Perrett and Senator Christine Milne, I look forward to working with the Red Cross to see how best this parliament can assist them in the very important work they do. On that day, we principally shared our appreciation for their assistance during the Queensland floods and other work they do around Australia.

The Red Cross and the Red Crescent Movement have been at the heart of the issue of nuclear weapons and nonproliferation from the outset of this debate. By continuing to raise their grave concerns and through their role in developing international humanitarian law, the movement contributed to the creation of additional protocols to the Geneva conventions in 1977. These protocols strengthened the distinction between civilians and combatants and reaffirmed the commitment to no unnecessary harm being caused to civilians during times of war. Of course, the destruction caused by nuclear weapons would fail to meet the no unnecessary harm principle. In 2011, the Australian Red Cross launched its official campaign to raise awareness of the horrific humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. It is a campaign of great consequence, and we all know the absolute destruction these weapons can cause. This is positive progress and the International Committee of the Red Cross and other bodies associated with disarmament should be commended for their work in both helping to ensure increasing interest and capitalising on commitments from the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

Our leaders must focus on the devastating humanitarian cost, as the Red Cross does. Remember that a nuclear weapon does not discriminate. Its path of destruction includes civilians, hospitals, doctors, land for farming, food and water. A nuclear bomb not only wipes out a city; it also wipes out so much more. As the vice-president of the ICRC, Christine Beerli, noted:

… the debate about nuclear weapons must be conducted not only on the basis of military doctrines and power politics but also on the basis of public health and human security.

And further:

Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time … and indeed to the survival of humanity.

Those are compelling words. We cannot have this debate without considering the humanitarian cost, but neither can we ignore the world in which we live—the instability, the uncertainty and the threats which lie within our anarchistic international system.

Should a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation willing to use it, the consequences would be devastating. This is why I support the Prime Minister's motion and why I commend the International Committee of the Red Cross for its strong contribution to this issue.

In conclusion, one of the most iconic images throughout history is, undoubtedly, the ruined Hiroshima peace stone, standing alone amid the destruction of the city. I hope to see nuclear weapons become a part of our past, not our future and, for that reason, I strongly support this motion.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion, moved by the Prime Minister on 21 March this year, on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. I speak as a member of a government that has sought to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime and that has played a very constructive role in global disarmament discussions, negotiations and engagement. I also speak as a long-time antinuclear activist and someone convinced that the risks posed by nuclear weapons and materials are grave. I have long argued that our efforts in Australia to advance the cause of genuine binding nuclear disarmament need to be as strong as possible.

It is in our national and global interests that the world rid itself of weapons that are so powerful so that they can never be used. Indeed, I do not think that deterrence, as we once knew it, any longer holds the weight or the coherence that it may once have done. We are a respected middle-size power and our contribution can be substantial and positive to disarmament efforts, especially at this point in the history of global nuclear disarmament politics. The fact is that, four decades after the nuclear non-proliferation treaty came into being, we are at a logjam. As former UN Secretary-General, Koffi Annan, phrased it, 'When it comes to effective nuclear disarmament, the world is at a stage of mutually assured paralysis.' Iran's nuclear ambitions are self-evident, as is the dangerous, quixotic behaviour of North Korea and the threat of the terrible use of a nuclear device by terrorism, given that increased access to and knowledge of nuclear materials is growing. At the same time, within the nuclear non-proliferation treaty regime, parties have not been able to find common ground on agreeing to advance concrete, timely actions for disarmament.

Over a decade ago a review of the non-proliferation treaty saw parties agree to 'reduce nuclear weapons globally with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons'. Since then, virtually nothing has happened. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, long seen as a reasonable bulwark to increased nuclear proliferation, still does not include a number of recalcitrant states—North Korea, Pakistan and India, the latter being a country we are now contemplating selling uranium to.

The motion we are debating calls for ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty by all states yet to do so and follows the 8 December 2010 UN General Assembly resolution, sponsored by all five nuclear weapon states, urging all states to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. And with 179 in favour and only one against, I think the message is clear.

US President, Barack Obama, has indicated that the US will consider immediate and aggressive ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty. The International Court of Justice has unanimously held that states have an obligation to pursue and bring to conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Following vigorous debate, the 2011 ALP national conference decided to create a special exception of allowing export of uranium to India. I acknowledge and respect that that conference has made that decision, but I observe that this does not mean that such export ought to happen immediately. I think we have a window of opportunity to further press for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty by all those countries that have not ratified it, as expressed in clause 3(C) of the motion under debate, and consider that any sale to India could be deferred in the meantime.

I note that although nuclear cooperation agreements have been reached between the US and India, India, whilst maintaining its current moratorium on nuclear testing, in subsequent statements has reserved its right to test a nuclear weapon if it so chooses. This issue is challenging due to the actions of Pakistan and its unwillingness to accede to nuclear disarmament agreements. Of course, Pakistan is a very near neighbour to India. But it remains the case that as a valued neighbour, an increasingly important economic power and a democratic nation, India's ongoing rejection of this treaty is highly regrettable. Australia is well placed to be a strong supporter and an important actor in the realm of nuclear disarmament politics. I think the motion before us means that there should be reconsideration of ratification of the treaty by India now.

There has been recent debate around expanded approaches to nuclear disarmament. I will come to one of those shortly, but the fact remains that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, along with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, still represents the foundation of the global nuclear disarmament framework. Greater participation enhances the cause of disarmament. The motion before us also affirms support for a world free of nuclear weapons and recognises that we are closer to the unthinkable, the possible use of even a crude nuclear device that would cause untold misery and destruction.

In order for us to play a full and proper role in multilateral disarmament, not only should we continue with the endeavours underway—which now include additional actions identified by the Prime Minister at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul—but, as the motion notes, Australia should participate fully in a more comprehensive global approach to disarmament. The motion calls for an exploration of a legal framework for the abolition of nuclear weapons, including the possibility of a nuclear weapons convention. This would be a positive step, but I believe we should now move more quickly to lead the efforts to secure a new nuclear weapons convention.

This would recognise that every country must disarm and that a decisive circuit-breaker is needed to get the world onto a structured path to genuine total disarmament. A draft model for a nuclear weapons convention has been in place for some time. Indeed, it draws specifically from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and there is international and civil society support that has continued to grow from the mid-90s to the present. On moving to break the logjam, the treaty to ban landmines provides a clear example of what is possible in a relatively short period of time. Likewise, the chemical weapons treaty is an example of what is achievable when major powers buy in and take action.

To repeat, Australia is well placed to be a strong supporter of a nuclear weapons convention following speedy consideration of legal issues and a convention framework. We are parties with Japan and the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. We have contributed substantially through the first Canberra commission and subsequent engagements in policy. We are a member of the seven-nation initiative. We contribute our fair share to the International Atomic Energy Agency and there are a host of other important constructive actions that we are involved in. We are also a major exporter of uranium, the fuel of nuclear weapons.

While assorted multilateral negotiations move at a snail's pace, the need to completely eliminate nuclear weapons in a highly globalised world where terrorism opportunities are considerable has never been greater. The five-step approach laid out in the draft nuclear weapons convention would see the prohibition of developing, testing, stockpiling, threats to use nuclear weapons as well as the prohibition of the production of weapons-usable fissile material. Importantly, it applies to all states without exception. By the way, India has indicated a willingness to join. As the momentum builds internationally, it is very important that Australia not only gets on board but leads the way; continues to press for the remaining nations, who have not yet done so, to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; and commits to a nuclear weapons convention as an essential major step to abolishing nuclear weapons. The safety of our world and our future demands nothing less.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The background to this motion is that it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which I chair, which investigated the issues concerning nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament in 2009 and reported on them in the treaties committee report, Report 106: Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for introducing and supporting this very important and very unusual bipartisan motion.

I want to again thank my fellow committee members—one of whom is sitting beside me, the member for Shortland—not just for producing a 230-plus-page report, but also for their attitude of cooperation and determination to say something significant and worth while, which they demonstrated in the way they approached this task. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has members from the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and the Greens, with very different perspectives on a range of nuclear and foreign policy questions, but each member of the committee wanted to play their part in protecting people from the nuclear threat and to ensure that Australia's voice is heard loud and clear around the world on these matters. So we worked through the issues until we achieved an agreed outcome, a platform for progress.

What is that platform? The committee wants to see the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in place. This treaty is incredibly important in halting the momentum for nuclear proliferation and ultimately ring-barking the nuclear weapons tree. We want all the uranium-exporting countries to require that the countries whom they export uranium to have an additional protocol to guarantee international atomic inspector access. We believe that the International Atomic Energy Agency's budget needs to be increased so that it can do its work properly and thoroughly. The committee examined proposals for a nuclear weapons convention and for a multilateral fuel bank. In each case more work needs to be done and we recommended the allocation of research and consultation resources towards the development of a nuclear weapons convention with a clear legal framework and enforceable verification.

It is important to understand that the friction between the nuclear haves and have-nots is alive and well. Throughout the history of the non-proliferation treaty, the nuclear haves have stressed nonproliferation—that is to say, making sure no other country gets nuclear weapons—while the nuclear have-nots have stressed disarmament—that is, obliging the nuclear-armed countries to get rid of their bombs. The countries of the non-aligned movement, essentially have-nots, are frustrated by the lack of progress on disarmament. Too often this difference of approach has led to international stalemate. Clearly, we need to have action on both fronts—nonproliferation and disarmament.

I am aware of resistance from within the non-aligned movement and the developing countries to the idea of the International Atomic Energy Agency carrying out the nuclear security function. But my view is that every country has a stake in stopping other countries from developing nuclear weapons. It is not enough to say that because we do not have nuclear weapons we are doing everything we can. The non-nuclear-weapon states could campaign for universal adherence to the additional protocol and should campaign for states to give up their aspirations for an indigenous enrichment capacity in favour of a multilateral fuel bank.

The road to nuclear hell is paved with defensive intentions. The United States developed nuclear weapons after it was attacked during the Second World War by Japan, and both the United States and Russia developed nuclear weapons as a defensive strategy during the Cold War. Because they have nuclear weapons, China, which at various times during the nuclear age has had poor relations with both America and Russia, developed nuclear weapons as well. Because China had nuclear weapons, India felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. Because India had nuclear weapons, Pakistan felt threatened and developed nuclear weapons. The strength of religious fundamentalist groups in Pakistan has created an ever-present and alarming risk that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of non-state actors, terrorists groups who have no respect for human life and who will take no notice of doctrines of deterrence and mutually-assured destruction in the way that governments might not unreasonably be expected to. We must do all that we can to break every link in this dangerous nuclear chain.

Back in 2009 President Barack Obama gave what is known as the Prague speech, setting out a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. It was more than welcome. The progress in discussions between the United States and Russia on a replacement nuclear weapons reduction treaty for START was also welcome. In February 2010 US and Russian negotiators reached an agreement in principle on a successor treaty to START that would reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons to between 1,500 and 1,675 each from the 2,200 agreed in 1991. There would be a reduction in nuclear delivery systems, and there was a joint understanding signed by President Barack Obama and then President Dmitry Medvedev in July 2009 which led to this. We also had a new Russian military doctrine announced at that time, moving away from earlier rhetoric on nuclear use closer towards the sole purpose of nuclear weapons being to deter nuclear attack, and that declaration is a positive step too.

It is America and Russia who have the vast majority of the world's nuclear weapons, so other countries can hardly be expected to disarm if there is no leadership coming from America and Russia. But the efforts of America and Russia alone will not make the world safe from nuclear attack—far from it. They must be complemented by steps taken by the other nuclear powers to also disarm. China, India and Pakistan will, like America and Russia, need to have bilateral or trilateral discussions so that reducing their nuclear hardware will not be seen within their own countries as prejudicial to their national security. Our task is to re-energise the international political debate against a background of a decade or more in which the international community has been sleepwalking when it comes to nonproliferation and especially disarmament.

It is good news that the Australian government has been heavily involved in the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, co-chaired by the former Japanese foreign minister Yoriko Kawaguchi and the former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, who has an outstanding international reputation and has done first-class work around the world, building the case for action. That commission released its report in late 2009.

Those developments, the announcements by Barack Obama and the negotiations with the Russians have been very good news. But there has been plenty of bad news on the nuclear front. North Korea has tested rockets that could be used for long-range missiles and conducted a nuclear explosion, in flagrant breach of the United Nations rules. Iran has also engaged in nuclear and ballistic missile activity. It locked out the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose job it is to make sure that countries producing nuclear power to generate electricity are not also trying to produce nuclear weapons.

The fact that we have now survived over 60 years of the age of nuclear weapons without descending into nuclear holocaust has been the cause of lot of analysis and discussion, with reference to the doctrines of deterrence and mutually assured destruction. I think one of the factors that should be acknowledged is the role of organisations around the world dedicated to peace, stubbornly refusing to recognise any legitimate role for nuclear weapons and helping to ensure that a climate in which the use of nuclear weapons might seem legitimate could not arise.

One of those organisations which I want to acknowledge this evening is the Australian Red Cross and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Late last year the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement met in Geneva to discuss a global resolution, and a landmark resolution was endorsed. This was done by representatives of 186 national societies from across the globe. Given the wide credibility that it has, I will take the liberty of reading it to the House:

Working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons:

The Council of Delegates,

deeply concerned about the destructive power of nuclear weapons, the unspeakable human suffering they cause, the difficulty of controlling their effects in space and time, the threat they pose to the environment and to future generations and the risks of escalation they create,

concerned also by the continued retention of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, the proliferation of such weapons and the constant risk that they could again be used,

disturbed by the serious implications of any use of nuclear weapons for humanitarian assistance activities and food production over wide areas of the world,

believing that the existence of nuclear weapons raises profound questions about the extent of suffering that humans are willing to inflict, or to permit, in warfare,

welcoming the renewed diplomatic efforts on nuclear disarmament, in particular the commitments made by States at the 2009 United Nations Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, the 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,

welcoming also the commitments made by States at the highest levels in the above fora to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons through concrete actions in the fields of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament,

… … …

drawing upon the testimony of atomic bomb survivors, the experience of the Japan Red Cross and ICRC in assisting the victims of the atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the knowledge gained through the ongoing treatment of survivors by the Japanese Red Cross Atomic Bomb Survivors Hospitals,

… … …

… emphasizes the incalculable human suffering that can be expected to result from any use of nuclear weapons, the lack of any adequate humanitarian response capacity and the absolute imperative to prevent such use,

… finds it difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the rules of distinction, precaution and proportionality,

… appeals to all States:

- to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used, regardless of their views on the legality of such weapons,

- to pursue in good faith and conclude with urgency and determination negotiations to prohibit the use of and completely eliminate nuclear weapons through a legally binding international agreement, based on existing commitments and international obligations …

Robert Tickner from the Australian Red Cross has said that it is their hope that they are able to achieve cross-party support from all the major political parties in Australia for the principles raised in the resolution. I want to register my support for the important contribution the movement has made in seeking the development of international law to clarify the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons.

There are so many nuclear weapons in the world that we can expect to be occupied for the remainder of our lives in the fight to get rid of them. We have a long way to go before we have to look too closely at what a world without nuclear weapons would actually look like. But I think it is necessary to have at least a little bit of a look at such a world, because otherwise we run the risk of bumping our heads up against resistance that seems illogical to us but is there all the same.

I believe that a world without nuclear weapons would be a safer world but the reality is that, in every country which possesses nuclear weapons, there are defence planners, policy makers and, indeed, ordinary citizens who are anxious that if they give up all their nuclear weapons they may be vulnerable to attack from another country—a country with superior conventional weapons, a larger army or a motive to attack them. Because of this, I believe that ultimate success in ridding the world of nuclear weapons will also depend on being able to achieve substantial disarming of conventional forces and weapons as well.

There needs to be more bilateral, multilateral and global discussion about reducing the size and reach of the armies of the world. We need to do more to address the underlying causes of war and terrorism. Analysts spend a great deal of time assessing the political and religious factors leading to the scourge of terrorism and of war in the modern world but they spend less time noting the underlying cause—conflict over scarce resources, scarce land, scarce water and scarce oil brought about by increasing population. So we need to be able to visualise a world without nuclear weapons, and that means thinking about what risks as well as benefits come with that and intelligently planning to address them. Borrowing a little from the late Edward Kennedy, the dream of a world without nuclear weapons is a dream that must never die. We must never accept that it is alright to live in a world where some people have the power to kill tens of millions of their fellow human beings and make the planet uninhabitable in a heartbeat.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Prime Minister's motion. In doing so I thank both her and the Leader of the Opposition for putting this unanimous motion to the parliament. It is a motion that I think is extremely important and one for which I do not think there is any option other than to support.

As a person who has been a long-term advocate for a nuclear-free world, I believe it is important that we move forward and take action. The Prime Minister's motion gives us a ground for doing so. But, more importantly, I think report No. 106 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—which I was privileged to be a member of the last parliament—really highlights the issues that revolve around nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It highlights the actions that can be taken to get to a world without nuclear weapons.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, there is no winner. The country that has the biggest and the most weapons, the country that has the largest stockpile, is not the winner. Any nation that is depending on its nuclear war stock is never going to be a winner. Other countries around the world are not winners either. There is a definite divide within the international community between those who have nuclear weapons and those who do not have nuclear weapons. Those that have nuclear weapons want to make sure that the countries that do not have nuclear weapons remain in that position. I do not think that in itself does anything to move this debate any further forward. Nuclear weapons do not make our world safer. Nuclear weapons actually create an environment of instability and, at the same time, create an environment where the very safety of everybody on this planet is at risk.

Currently there are five listed nuclear powers. They are Britain, China, France, Russia and the US. There are three that lie outside the NPT. They are India, Israel and Pakistan. I would now add a fourth, and that is North Korea. We have seen over the last 12 months both North Korea and Iran flexing their muscles and moving to a situation where they are becoming a nuclear threat. Although I said that there are four nations, I should have added Iran as another nation that is in refusing to allow inspectors to come in and is openly boasting of having a nuclear weapons program.

We cannot be complacent. It is complacency that has led us into the position we are in now. The threat is still very acute. There is a combined stockpile of over 20,000 nuclear weapons. Of these, 5,000 warheads are launch-ready and 2,000 of these warheads are in a state of high operational alert. This places the very existence of the planet we live on at risk. I believe the motion the Prime Minister has moved acknowledges just how important this is.

On 2 July 2009 I attended the Conference on Disarmament. The thing I found most disturbing of all was that the debate that took place on that day was determining the agenda for discussion of nuclear disarmament. Moving the issue forward and actually working on disarmament was not happening, because those countries at the Conference on Disarmament could not even agree on an agenda and the format those discussions would take. I do not think that is good enough. I think it is very, very important that we get to a stage where all countries acknowledge that nuclear weapons are dispensable and that the way to deal with the threats of tomorrow is not through nuclear threats.

It is very important that we coax and coerce North Korea back into the NPT, because you cannot deal with issues such as this unless all the players are involved. So I strongly urge that part of the role that Australia plays in nuclear nonproliferation is to encourage and engage with all those countries that have nuclear weapons and that wish to engage in nuclear weaponry.

I would like to refer to the Treaties Committee that I mentioned earlier. In total there were 22 recommendations, and those recommendations were unanimous. They were the recommendations of a committee that had people from both sides of this parliament, and people with very diverse views. Recommendation 1 was that the government support and achieve the ratification of the CTBT by the United States Senate. We saw that as very important, and the committee was involved in a number of discussions around that. But that has not happened. It needs to happen, as do the other recommendations in this report. Diplomatic efforts to encourage ratification of the CTBT need to be pursued. Australia has a very strong role in that because of the relationship we have with the United States.

The committee also recommended that the government use all its diplomatic powers to promote negotiations on a verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty. The committee felt very strongly about the issues that were raised and the recommendations that were made. The committee had the support of the government at the time, and the Prime Minister reiterated her support for nuclear disarmament in her speech in the parliament. One of the recommendations I thought was very important was recommendation 5, which recommends that the Australian government encourage all other uranium exporting countries to require countries to which they export uranium to have an additional protocol in place. It is absolutely paramount that countries that receive uranium from Australia are parties to the NPT, and I strongly support the additional protocol. I do not think as a nation we should be exporting our uranium to anyone that has not signed up to the treaty.

There were a number of other important recommendations in the treaties committee report. The committee members that were involved in that inquiry, particularly those that visited other countries, felt that Australia really does have a leadership role. They felt that not enough was happening, that there were enough nuclear weapons in the international community to pose a real threat to the lives of everyone on this planet and that the one-upmanship of ensuring that those countries that have nuclear weapons and maintain those weapons was not really leading anywhere—along with the fact that it created that desire of those countries that did not have nuclear weapons to seek to obtain those weapons.

I refer to a paper by Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director for the Centre of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the ANU. I see that the member for Fremantle is here. I know that she was responsible for having the professor come and talk to us. He put it very well:

The case for abolition is simple, elegant and eloquent. Without strengthening national security, nuclear weapons diminish our common humanity and impoverish our soul. Their very destructiveness robs them of military utility against other nuclear powers and of political utility against nonnuclear countries.

As long as any country has any, others will want some. As long as they exist, they will be used one day again by design, accident or miscalculation.

That very much sets out the scenario for nuclear weapons.

The doctrine of deterrence does not work. The current treaties do not include groups involved in terrorism. War and terrorism need to be addressed in ways other than through nuclear weaponry and through nations demonstrating the level of power they have by the number of nuclear warheads they own. There need to be more multilateral and bilateral agreements entered into. Australia needs to take the lead and be involved in diplomacy, moving to a situation where we have a nuclear-free world. Australia has a close relationship with Israel—and I notice that nowhere is it mentioned the fact that Israel have nuclear weapons. They also need to be involved and agree to limitations on the nuclear weapons they hold.

This is a question that can easily be answered. We need to move. I fully admit that within my lifetime we will not reach the stage where we have a nuclear-weapon-free world—

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why not?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but I will do everything in my power to see that that happens. I was actually in Tahiti in 1995, when the nuclear testing took place there. Australia and New Zealand have always been leaders in the fight against nuclear weapons.

I will finish where I started, by congratulating the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on agreeing on the motion that is before the parliament; I just ask that the motion be given a few more teeth.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this critical issue, and I thank the Prime Minister for her timely motion in support of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, which has in turn been seconded by the opposition leader. Every single point of the motion must be pursued with urgency if this most ominous of threats to worldwide peace and stability is finally to be eradicated. The spectre of nuclear war has haunted human civilisation for the past 66 years. By the time the Cold War ended, the US and the Soviet Union between them possessed more than 70,000 nuclear warheads.

In the 20 years since its creation, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the NPT, and the further related instruments that have flowed on from the agreement, including the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, or CTBT, have operated to greatly reduce the stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But the fact remains that any outcome short of total disarmament is unacceptable, because it leaves us, the global community, at risk of suffering the effects of a nuclear explosion. No greater destructive event exists. As Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament in the Crawford School and Professor of International Relations, both at the Australian National University, has noted:

Since the end of the Cold War, the risk of a Russia-United States nuclear war has diminished, but the prospect of nuclear weapons being used by other nuclear-armed states or nonstate actors has become more plausible.

I also thank Professor Thakur for sharing his expert view on the gravity of the nuclear status quo when he addressed Australia's UN Parliamentary Group in March.

While the Cold War persisted, the rally cries and wide public calls for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament were loud and impassioned, but in the last couple of decades they have lessened. Grassroots protesters have, quite rightly, become a bit disillusioned by the slow pace of progress and by the apparent lack of political will that have come to prevail, notwithstanding the escalation of nuclear threats in the Middle East and Asia. As US senior statesmen Henry Kissinger, William J. Perry, Sam Nunn and George P. Shultz said in their collaborative efforts to re-energise the nuclear debate:

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. The world faces a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.

The steps being taken to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

In September 2009, following its inquiry into nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, of which I am a member, delivered its report—and I am very pleased that its 22 recommendations are acknowledged by the Prime Minister's motion. As the committee chair, the member for Wills, noted in his foreword to report 106:

We must do all that we can to try to break every link in this dangerous nuclear chain. Every one of us has a responsibility to help re-energise the international political debate, against a background of really a decade or more in which the international community has been sleepwalking when it comes to both non-proliferation and especially disarmament.

…   …   …

We must never accept that it is alright to live in a world where some people have the power to kill tens of millions of their fellow human beings, and make the planet uninhabitable, in a heart beat.

The prospect of the global community sleepwalking its way through a period in which the nuclear threat goes unchallenged or grows would be unacceptable to any thinking person. But, unless we see a resuscitation and intensification of the debate in due course, that is exactly the scenario we will face. On this point I again defer to the words of Professor Thakur:

… not one country that had an atomic bomb in 1968 when the NPT was signed has given it up. Judging by their actions rather than the rhetoric, all are determined to remain nuclear-armed.

…   …   …

To would-be proliferators, the lesson is clear: Nuclear weapons are indispensable in today’s world and for dealing with tomorrow’s threats

…   …   …

The most powerful stimulus to nuclear proliferation by others is the continuing possession of the bomb by some. Nuclear weapons could not proliferate if they did not exist; because they do, they will.

As the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Treaties found in 2009, other countries can hardly be expected to disarm if there is no leadership coming from America and Russia, which harbour the vast majority of nuclear weapons. While the US has not yet ratified the CTBT, it was encouraging in 2010 to see the US and Russia negotiate, sign and ratify a new strategic arms reduction treaty, namely START II, which is intended to reduce nuclear arsenals by one third. I am hopeful that the START II process will eventually pave the way to significant near-term disarmament and that the proposed Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, an instrument that would prohibit the further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices, will be implemented. But, clearly, we are some way from that. Professor Thakur has warned of a palpable and growing sense that START II could mark the end of nuclear disarmament progress instead of being the first step on the road to abolition.

The chairman of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Tilman Ruff, associate professor in the Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, recently warned on ABC Radio that Australia needs to be mindful of not sending mixed messages, for example, wanting the US to keep a strong nuclear arsenal while also advocating nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Professor Ruff asked: are we walking the talk or are we saying one thing and doing another?

In the view of many, including the Australian parliament, the world needs to be looking at an agreement for wholesale nuclear disarmament rather than being satisfied with the halting incremental steps that have been taken to date. A nuclear weapons convention, which would build on the 1968 NPT to prohibit the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and provide for their elimination has been championed by ICAN and is supported by more than 200 nongovernment organisations in 60 countries as well as by more than 700 members of parliament from more than 75 countries who have joined the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Group.

I would like at this point to acknowledge the fine work of the Honourable Gareth Evans, co-chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament as well as the co-chairmanship of Japan to the commission building on the compelling case for action made earlier by the Canberra commission which said:

So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, it defies credibility that they will not one day be used, by accident, miscalculation or design. And any such use would be catastrophic for our world as we know it.

I applaud the Prime Minister for reinvigorating this critical debate, a debate in which Australia has always played and should continue to play a loud and active role.

Debate adjourned.