Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you. As we learned during the hearing, the base facilitates, enable and support nuclear armed submarines, which are an attack and defensive weapons platform. There is no real doctrine which says that these are defensive weapons. The credibility of Australia's efforts to push for action on nuclear disarmament at the global level is greatly reduced when we lend ports infrastructure and personnel to legitimising the retention and deployment of these weapons. This, of course, is another reason why the Greens do not believe that this treaty should be adopted in its current form.

I acknowledge that the JSCOT committee, which did a comprehensive and unanimous report on nuclear disarmament issues some time ago and which Senator Macdonald's party signed onto, did seriously engage with the question of nuclear weapons in its inquiry and report. The committee noted in this report that the proposed 25-year agreement may pose a conflicting obligation should nuclear disarmament diplomacy advance within this timeframe. In other words, this agreement, it is to be hoped and acknowledged by this report, may outlast the security arrangements which preceded it, in that we may not need to keep these horrific weapons in the field for another 25 years. It is a pity that the committee refused to acknowledge that allowing nuclear weapon states to continue business as usual deters any action towards disarmament. As long as Australia continues to lend weight and credence to the idea that nuclear weapons bring security by participating in the US nuclear weapons umbrella, and allowing bases on our soil to facilitate the nuclear weapons apparatus, we are missing an opportunity to demonstrate that giving a reduced role to nuclear weapons is practically achievable and need not result in damaged alliances.