David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We need to ban the bomb. One thing is certain: the longer we permit nuclear weapons stockpiling by governments, the risk of a catastrophic nuclear strike grows ever more imminent. Amid growing global instability, we need no reminders of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons. These weapons ignore borders. They ignore humanity. They inflict lasting suffering on people and the planet, which it is impossible to mitigate. They are war crimes.

Australia itself has played an appalling part, an immoral part, in the nuclear weapons industry. We need to remember in this debate the complicity of the Australian government in the testing of nuclear weapons on the lands of the Pitjantjatjara people in Maralinga, and the ongoing damage and pain, the poisoning of land and water and the destruction of First Nations culture that Australia was part of in the nuclear weapons industry.

As Russian bombs hit Ukrainian cities and Saudi bombs destroy Yemen, peace has never been so urgent. One important step that Australia could take right now to signal that we are true advocates for peace would be to sign and ratify this treaty. There are no safe levels of nuclear weapons, and that is why the Australian government needs to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Complete elimination of nuclear weapons is the only way to guarantee that they are never used again. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons brings nuclear weapons into the ranks of chemical and biological weapons, as they should be, as weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction, proscribed by international law. The fact that the Australian government is still refusing to sign and ratify this treaty, despite the change of government and despite the promises in opposition, puts us all at increasing risk.

I note that Prime Minister Albanese has been a vocal supporter of the treaty. Labor made pre-election pledges, and I recall the now Prime Minister being photographed holding and endorsing the treaty, alongside ICAN. Good on him in opposition, but what is happening now? In this debate, the position of Labor is that they will not sign this until there is universal endorsement. That is the Saint Augustine line, isn't it—'Oh, Lord, give me chastity and continence but not yet'? 'Not ever' is the test for Labor, because no international treaty has universal endorsement. Labor needs to stand up and make good on the promise that it took to the election—the promise it made to future generations; the promise it made to peace—and make Australia a global leader. That would make Australia the first country under the United States's so-called nuclear umbrella to become a state party of the treaty.

As the Greens and as my colleague Senator Steele-John pointed out, we are part of a proud history of people-powered resistance to the nuclear industry and peace activism. Together there is a powerful and growing anti-nuclear movement. I want to recognise the advocacy and the activism of those staunch campaigners who fought for decades to bring this treaty into action and who continue to stand up for peace and against the nuclear industry. That includes the amazing work of ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. People said it could not be done, and then they did it. That is the lesson the Australian government needs to understand. People said to ICAN, 'You cannot do this,' and they did it. Now we need Australia to do its part and to join with Wage Peace and the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance.

At this point I want to recognise the courage, the strength and the advocacy of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who have come to Australia countless times to tell us about the indiscriminate violence of nuclear weapons. The Australian public has listened. Why won't the Australian government? We all now need to join together to build the most powerful anti-war movement in history. We need to stand together against the warmongers and the profiteers who want to endorse a nuclear industry. We know this: in any given year, there is a small but, tragically, growing risk that nuclear weapons will be used, the stockpile will be fired and our planet, our civilisation, will be destroyed. If we hold nuclear weapons for an indefinite amount of time, that small statistical risk in any given year means it's a certainty, over the arc of history, that they will be used.

We need to ban the bomb. We need to keep fighting for peace like our lives depend on it, because, in fact, they do.