Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present report No. 106 of the committee, Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament - Statement

Mr President, I present Report 106 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which relates to the Committee's inquiry into the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties involving Australia.

This has been an important and timely inquiry that has taken place at a time of renewed commitment by world leaders to progressing disarmament and strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In this inquiry, the Committee has focussed upon a number of treaties that are central to achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

The Committee wants to see the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in place. By banning parties from carrying out any nuclear weapon test or other nuclear explosion, this Treaty is incredibly important in halting the momentum for nuclear proliferation. The Committee has concluded that Australia should promote efforts to achieve ratification by the nine nations required to bring this Treaty into force.

The Committee also wants to see a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in place. This Treaty would stop countries building up fissile materials and therefore reduce the risks of proliferation and limit the risk of nuclear arms races.

The Committee also concludes that all uranium exporting countries should require that the countries to whom they export uranium have an Additional Protocol to guarantee International Atomic Energy Agency inspector access. The Committee believes that the International Atomic Energy Agency's budget needs to be increased so it can do its work properly and thoroughly.

The Committee examined proposals for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and fuel cycle multilateralisation. In each case, the Committee has recommended further investigation by the Government.

It is important to understand that the friction between nuclear 'haves' and the nuclear 'have-nots' is alive and well. Throughout the history of the Non-Proliferation Treaty the nuclear haves have stressed non-proliferation — that is, making sure no other country gets nuclear weapons, and 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 — disarmament and non-proliferation.

The Committee strongly supports the work of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, the Conference on Disarmament and the forthcoming 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. We have made recommendations which reflect this support. We have also made recommendations designed to encourage Parliamentarians all around the world to engage with and talk up, a world without nuclear weapons.

It became clear throughout the inquiry that it is time for concrete, demonstrative action to be taken. I urge my colleagues here in Australia and in other Parliaments, and ordinary Australians and citizens of other countries, to read the report, think about it, and make a world free of nuclear weapons a reality.

I will address certain aspects of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report. The committee, in its comprehensive report, has focused on a number of treaties that are central to achieving a world without nuclear weapons. It ought to be noted that after an exhaustive 12-month inquiry, which also included international travel—which, I should add, I was not part of—that was very necessary to the report, the committee produced a unanimous report. It is a fine achievement indeed. Firstly, it indicates the weight and gravity that all members have placed on the recommendations of the report. Anyone who knows this joint house treaties committee—and some might think it is just another committee in the parliament among so many—knows it is unique, and my committee colleague who is present would endorse that comment. It seems in many respects that the Prime Minister has caballed all the left-wing thoughts and ideas into this committee and found a home for them. As the deputy chair of the committee, I know it is often a difficult task and an exhausting task to attend meetings. But on this occasion, what do you know: we have come up with a unanimous report. That ought to be noted. It is a fine achievement indeed. As I said, it shows the gravity we all place on the recommendations.

The committee addressed the greatest threats facing the world as to nuclear armament: the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea and their pursuit of warheads and their pursuit of the bomb. The committee had this to say:

The situations of Iran and North Korea are clearly destabilising and counter the positive moves that have been identified elsewhere in the Committee’s report. The Committee considers that resolution of these issues must be priorities for the international community. There are likely to be serious implications for the NPT and the non-proliferation regime more broadly if strong international action is not taken.

I venture to say it was recognised that the greatest threat to world peace and stability in the Middle East comes from Iran, their nuclear program and their ambition to obtain nuclear weapons. The committee report highlights this claim. It says:

In its report, World at risk, the US Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism considered that Iran constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The Commission argued that:

Failure to resolve these crises could lead some countries to revisit their earlier decisions to renounce nuclear weapons, potentially leading to a cascade of new nuclear-weapon states.

Australia’s Gareth Evans, in submitting to the committee, had this to say:

In short, it would be very, very dangerous indeed were Iran to acquire actual nuclear weapons. It would be extremely destabilising in the region. It would almost certainly generate a military response from Israel, maybe with other support, and that in turn, I think, would itself have quite catastrophically destabilising implications not only for the region but on a broader front.

That broader front would be the world.

As the chamber would be aware, Iran is a volatile country itself these days. It has what is best described as an illegitimate government that completely rigged its election and put down any protests against that rigged election. We know Iran is a sponsor, a master, a driver and a supporter of terrorism around the world—namely, Hezbollah. The problem is that if Iran gets nuclear weapons and is able to channel them to terrorist organisations like Hezbollah, no-one should doubt that Hezbollah would use them, and we know they would use them against Israel.

Against this backdrop and the report in hand, I urge the government to double its efforts in taking on Iran over this issue and its obvious plans to create nuclear weaponry—with the international community and other international governments, namely, the United Nations Security Council, through sanctions and incentives—and pressure Iran to abandon its plans. Moreover, Australia ought to signal its support of its chief ally, the United States. Should all options come to an end, we ought to signal that we support the existing policy of the United States that upholds that they will leave all military options on the table.