Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Hansard source

I note for the chamber that this motion proposes a significant change to Australia's longstanding position in relation to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The coalition notes that Australia has consistently made clear that the treaty, as it stands, does not offer a practical path to effective disarmament, nor does it enhance security. Not a single nuclear-possessing state has participated in its negotiations, nor have they signed or ratified the treaty. The treaty will not rid the world of a single nuclear weapon.

Australia has always considered the NPT, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—which includes nuclear-possessing states as signatories—as the foundation of global nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. What the government would need to explain if it went down the path of changing Australia's consistent position in relation to this treaty is how it will address the limitations of the TPNW, including lack of effective verification and enforcement processes. The government also needs to explain what any change to Australia's position would mean for our alliance with the United States as a nuclear-possessing state, for example.

The TPNW is notably different from other treaties which Australia has supported. For example, in relation to the NPT, the International Committee of the Red Cross notes that it can be seen as an agreement between non-nuclear-armed states, which surrender the option to develop nuclear weapons, and nuclear-armed states, which are obliged to work towards disarming and eliminating nuclear weapons. Secondly, the comprehensive test ban treaty bans all nuclear test explosions as a practical step towards nuclear disarmament and an effective nonproliferation measure which limits the technical development of nuclear weapons.

Australian was not a participant in the TPNW negotiations. Indeed, in October 2017 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade gave evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at supplementary estimates which said:

… Australia is committed to a world without nuclear weapons through implementation of the NPT, including article 6, in a step-by-step and verifiable manner. But we will not sign or ratify the ban or the prohibition treaty because we don't regard it as an effective measure to eliminate nuclear weapons.

…   …   …

We also take the view that the treaty is fundamentally flawed, and risks undermining the NPT. That may reflect the fact that it was negotiated very, very rapidly; it does not involve any of the states that possess nuclear weapons; no such states are likely to join; and it will not eliminate a single nuclear weapon. It does not include viable mechanisms for the elimination or reduction of nuclear weapons, or for maintaining a world free of nuclear weapons.

I note Senator Ciccone's words in here this afternoon. In January last year the then Labor opposition welcomed the ratification of the treaty, but I do note the conditionality of that statement, which said:

We have committed to signing and ratifying the treaty after taking account the need to ensure an effective verification and enforcement architecture, interaction of the Treaty with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and achieving universal support.

So, given that the government apparently shares the concerns of the opposition regarding the absence of effective verification and enforcement mechanisms, we would call upon the government to justify any change to the longstanding position Australia has taken on this treaty. Given the complete absence of nuclear-possessing states as parties to the treaty, the opposition would call on the government to explain how it would meet that benchmark of universal support before Australia agreed to sign and ratify the agreement. Given those stated concerns of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the treaty risks undermining the very important NPT, we'd also call upon the government to guarantee that any decision to sign and ratify the TPNW would not have a negative impact on either Australia's or the global commitment to both the NPT and the comprehensive test ban treaty.

We have a strong record on nuclear nonproliferation. We've always welcomed further progress towards the universalisation of the NPT. I'd also note what a great pleasure it was to see eminent Australian Dr Robert Floyd elected to lead the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization as its executive secretary in 2021. To note from the media release of the time, as the first executive secretary elected from the Indo-Pacific, this appointment demonstrated Australia's active commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament and our practical contribution to multilateral cooperation. With its 185 state signatories, the CTBT aims to end nuclear weapons testing worldwide, and I know that Dr Floyd, whom I regard very highly, will play a critical role in supporting the treaty's objectives. There are outstanding questions for any government who would examine the TPNW for ratification, and I've laid those on the table today on behalf of the coalition.