Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

On this day, 72 years ago, the Japanese city of Hiroshima still burned. Just days before, it had been laid waste by the first atomic bomb dropped on a population. Many of its citizens were incinerated or were dying excruciating deaths from burns and radiation poisoning. If they were lucky enough to survive the immediate aftermath of the bombing, they faced a lifetime of watching those around them suffer cancer and chronic disease, fearing that they themselves would fall victim, years or decades later, to the bomb that razed 70 per cent of their city. Seventy-two years ago tomorrow, the US dropped a second, larger plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. Ground temperatures reached 4,000 degrees Celsius, and radioactive rain poured down. By the end of 1945, more than 200,000 people had been killed by those two bombs. The horror and human suffering unleashed prompted nations to agree that nuclear weapons were 'contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity'. In the decades since the United Nations General Assembly made that declaration—its very first—nations have regularly gathered, in Geneva and Vienna and New York, to condemn the scourge of nuclear weapons and to repeatedly vow, 'Never again.'

In the gridlocked Conference on Disarmament, and in the regular review conferences of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, we have heard over and over again that of course we can abolish nuclear weapons, if we just take a moderate step-by-step approach. All the while, a handful of states have been amassing huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, many deployed on a hair trigger. And countries like Australia underpin this dangerous reality, basing their military policy on the destructive doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence. What a perfect example of cognitive dissonance: the mental twists that the Australian government performs when it piously deplores the threat of nuclear weapons on the one hand and defends their strategic importance on the other.

And now, finally, the sensible majority has called time. In July, the United Nations voted overwhelmingly to adopt a treaty banning the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. The final vote, of 122 nations to one, with one abstention, leaves absolutely no doubt as to the scale of the global movement for abolition. One hundred and twenty-two countries have stood up to the nuclear weapons states and to their proxies. The election of Donald Trump has blown away any illusions that existing nuclear weapons are in safe hands. And, of course, North Korea's provocations are evidence enough that there are no safe hands for the tools of massive nuclear violence. Now is the time for de-escalation, and this treaty provides a pathway.

And yet where was Australia? Australia was absent. Not only did we not show up but we actively undermined the negotiations—small hands pulling our strings as Julie Bishop decried the whole process. So blatant was our duplicity that we earned the moniker of 'weasel'. Well, Prime Minister Turnbull, former Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Bishop, you did not succeed in derailing the process. So now it's time to change course. Sign the treaty. Ratify it. Make sure Australia has a seat at the table on behalf of your constituents, the overwhelming majority of whom want a world free of nuclear weapons. Take up our seat at the table, for the sake of Australia's global standing. Don't make nuclear disarmament yet another appalling example of Australia's crawling retreat from international leadership, as we've seen on climate change, on refugees, on foreign aid and on so many critical issues. Take the lead from the Australians who care so much about this issue that they're willing to stand beside a road on a freezing Canberra morning so that members of this parliament will know that the world banned the bomb during the winter break and that this government must sign up. Indeed, why not take a leaf out of the book of our former colleague Scott Ludlam. Scott travelled to New York at his own expense to join global civil society organisations like the Red Cross and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, groups who played such a powerful role in achieving this treaty.

Indeed, in the moments I have left, I want to pay tribute to Scott, who poured so much of himself into the campaigns against nuclear weapons, nuclear power and uranium mining. Unlike our former colleague Larissa Waters, who I hope will be with us soon, Scott has indicated he is unlikely to return to the parliament in the near future. So I think it's appropriate that I reflect on his parliamentary career. He won't have the opportunity to do that for himself and, indeed, I suspect, even if he had the opportunity, he wouldn't do it. So I have the great honour of saying a few words about Scott Ludlam.

Scott cut his teeth at the Jabiluka uranium blockade, and when he entered this Parliament he continued the work of Senator Jo Vallentine, a leading voice for so many in the disarmament and peace movements. For years Scott stood with Aboriginal people at Muckaty station in the Northern Territory, who successfully fought off a plan to dump nuclear waste on their sacred land. And throughout his entire time in Parliament he worked to help campaigners achieve the very treaty that I am celebrating here today with so many people across the community.

Of course Scott's work spanned much more than nuclear and uranium issues. He brought a really inspiring vision for what a truly sustainable city should look like, and he fought passionately with his community against destructive projects like the Perth Freight Link, which would have destroyed Perth's Beeliar wetlands. It was such a pleasure to go with him, after the state election in Western Australia, and to plant a tree in those wetlands as a symbol of how we can overturn such a destructive project.

Scott provided a rare voice for those demanding more support for invisible illnesses like chronic fatigue syndrome. He brought unmatched literacy in the modern digital world to this parliament while remaining a fierce advocate for age-old media institutions like community and public broadcasters. His loss will be felt very deeply—somebody who knew the digital world inside out and could speak about it with an authority so sadly lacking in this parliament.

Over and above Scott's work on specific issues, I was humbled by the outpouring of support he received upon announcing his departure. The overwhelming message was that he represented people across the political spectrum. Even those who didn't vote for Scott said they were sad to see him go. In a time of hyper-partisanship and cynicism about politics and politicians, that is a remarkable feat, and something we should all try to emulate.

He was a man of incredible integrity, a man of honour, somebody who was both gentle and firm and whose intellect was unsurpassed. We will dearly miss Scott's voice in our party room, but more importantly, I think he will be missed in this parliament—his considered speeches, his probing questions in Senate estimates, his cheeky sense of humour and the way he represented his WA constituents. Most of all, we will miss his vision for what this country could be, if only we had the leadership to lift us there. Scott, we're going to miss you, buddy. We know you'll continue to do your work in a different way. We know you'll be successful. All the best, Scott. You're a wonderful human being.