David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. In October, at the UN General Assembly First Committee, Australia abstained on a resolution on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Instead of voting yes, Australia voted no due to an apparent concern with the line:

… it is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons never be used again, under any circumstances.

One hundred and thirty-six nations voted in favour of this resolution, which also notes that the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is their total elimination. If the government is as strongly committed to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament as it claims, why did it vote against the resolution?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, I'll make a point about the elimination of nuclear weapons. I know that those who advocate for the TPNW—and Senator Pocock did so in that question—construe the argument as if that is the only way one can demonstrate a commitment to nuclear disarmament. We disagree. We believe that the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime is the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

I make the point that we already, as a country, have made a very clear commitment internationally that we do not have and will not seek nuclear weapons. We have legally binding commitments not to acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons under both the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons and the Treaty of Rarotonga. There's no question that we recognise the devastating consequences for humanity of any use of nuclear weapons. What we do say is that we need to work with others to strengthen the NPT. We need to join with others, as we have, for a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. We need to work with the IAEA—the International Atomic Energy Agency—to ensure the peaceful use of technology to combat proliferation and nuclear security risks.

The government shares the TPNW's ambition for a world without nuclear weapons. We're committed to engage constructively to identify possible pathways to disarmament. As the senator will know, under this government we have determined to attend the two meetings of state parties under the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as an observer. We have chosen to abstain rather than vote against the UN General Assembly resolution, which I think is the reference the senator made—unlike the previous government. And we will continue to engage both with the UN process and with civil society, and we'll take a considered approach to the treaty.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, a first supplementary.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. There are many Australians who were puzzled by the abstention. I'm interested in knowing in what circumstances the government would consider the use of nuclear weapons and the ensuing humanitarian consequences acceptable?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all understand the horror of the use of nuclear weapons. The way you posited the question, Senator Pocock, suggested that that's the basis on which we made the decision we made. I have explained to you the framework that we're operating under. I think it's problematic that people choose not to put impetus behind the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; that is the treaty that has the nuclear parties as part of it, and we all know that nuclear armed states must be part of any nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime.

I understand why there are advocates, including from civil society, who want the TPNW. We all share that aspiration. But we also know that there has to be verification and there has to be— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, a second supplementary.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I note that Japan supported that motion and, given that Labor has committed and, indeed, recommitted to signing and ratifying the TPNW, I'm interested in knowing when it will actually follow through with this?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have said is that we will consider the treaty, including questions about its universality, its interaction with the non-proliferation treaty and the need to ensure effective verification and enforcement architecture. Those are reasonable propositions if you actually want a world that is free of nuclear weapons—if you actually want a world where we progress towards disarmament. You have to have universality and you have to have an 'I' to the NPT, which is the only treaty to which the nuclear parties are party. And you have to have verification and enforcement architecture. That is the logic of making sure you have progress on disarmament: you have to have verification and enforcement. That's a reasonable position.

I understand the concern that people have and I would point you to the work that the government is doing, whether that's on the NPT, our attendance at the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons conferences or the— (Time expired)