Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In January 2007 the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that they were moving the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock from seven minutes to midnight to five minutes to midnight. They said:

We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices.

This issue can be said, without exaggeration, to mark a line between two starkly divergent human destinies, between a future in which human civilisation—with all its many flaws and challenges—nevertheless manages to move forward to a nuclear-weapon-free world, or a future in which humankind continues to inflict upon itself and the planet the promethium curse of nuclear weapons. The fact that we have existed with nuclear weapons but without nuclear war for several decades should not create the impression that this is a sustainable state of affairs. As long as nuclear weapons exist in the world the chance of their use not only persists; it grows. The reality is that with every passing decade the number of countries in possession of nuclear technology and capability has increased. We now face the further frightening prospect of non-state possession of nuclear weapons.

This notice of motion is timely for three reasons. The first is that the sixth Article XIV (Entry Into Force) Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be held later this month, on 24 and 25 September. The second is that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is currently undertaking an inquiry into nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Its recommendations are intended to contribute to the work of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The last and perhaps most important reason is that, on this issue, every day is a timely occasion. Every parliamentary and public consideration of the need to work against the threat and the spread of nuclear weapons is timely.

The dual tracks and non-proliferation and disarmament have been identified as the paths to a nuclear-free world. However, recent years have seen global negotiations stagnate. The comprehensive test ban treaty, which bans parties from carrying out any nuclear tests, has been identified as one of the most important steps towards revitalising global efforts to achieve non-proliferation and disarmament. The CTBT is designed to stop both the a priori development of nuclear weapons capability and the enhancement of any existing capability. It is therefore both a non-proliferation measure and an effective step towards disarmament. However, this important treaty, which has already been ratified by 149 countries, cannot come into force until it is also ratified by the following nine countries: United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Israel and Iran. It is thought by many that US ratification will create the impetus for ratification by other states. In this regard, recent statements by President Obama that his administration will immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty are very heartening. I note the statement in the President’s inauguration address:

With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat…

We in Australia can count ourselves in the category of old friends. I endorse the remarks of the member for Wills, my colleague and chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, when he said in a recent speech to the Medical Association for Prevention of War that Australia can make a contribution by signalling our support for US nuclear disarmament notwithstanding the benefit we derive from our defence alliance with America. Australia can further contribute by taking the actions enumerated in this motion.

Finally, I want to mention Jo Vallentine, a former Australian senator and long-time antinuclear campaigner and Fremantle community activist. Jo was arrested a couple of months ago in Fremantle while making a robust but peaceful protest against war and nuclear weapons. I am not in a position to comment directly on her arrest, and that would not be appropriate. On this occasion, in speaking about the international effort to combat nuclear weapons through agreements like the comprehensive test ban treaty, I want to recognise the efforts that Jo and others, including Greens Senator Scott Ludlam and Fremantle ALP member and Vietnam veteran Chuck Bonzas, have made and continue to make. It is only through action at every level—government and citizen, local and international—that we can seriously hope to make progress towards a world without nuclear weapons. Otherwise, as perceptively penned by Judith Wright, ‘in one stroke we win the world and lose it’.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on this motion, as it relates to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The treaty was established in 1996, and the core provision of the treaty is the prohibition of all nuclear explosions by all nations. When the treaty was created, there were 44 nations specifically mentioned as having nuclear capacities. The treaty must be signed and ratified by all those 44 nations. Unfortunately, nine of those nations are yet to ratify the treaty, meaning that nine more ratifications are needed before it can come into force. Those nations are China, North Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the USA.

Australia has a proud record on this treaty. It should be recalled that the treaty in its draft form did not receive the consensus agreement required at the Conference on Disarmament. Disregarding the Conference on Disarmament, the Howard government went forward on this issue and submitted the draft treaty to the General Assembly of the United Nations. The treaty was sponsored by Australia and attracted the co-sponsorship of 127 other nations. The treaty was adopted by a very large majority. Australia was a signatory on the day that the treaty opened for signature, 24 September 1996, along with the five declared nuclear weapons states. The treaty was signed by the Howard government and it was also the Howard government that ratified the treaty in 1998. Whilst it is true that we have a good record on this treaty and on disarmament as well, there is still much to be done. The coalition remain fully supportive of the aims of the treaty and continue to call on nations to ratify it. We also urge the government to use its influence to encourage other nations to ratify the treaty.

Further to that, I serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which is undertaking an inquiry into nuclear nonproliferation. I share the strong interest of other speakers on this motion and note that we are all members of the committee. With regard to further action by Australia, it is certainly my view that every time one of our committees, delegations or individual study tour participants travels overseas the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, along with other treaties that relate to issues of key importance to Australia, should be raised as a matter of course. Australia can send a very clear and consistent message to the world in this way.

I spoke before about the actions taken by the Howard government in stepping past the Conference on Disarmament’s inability to achieve consensus in 1996. Having had the opportunity to recently observe the Conference on Disarmament, I wonder whether that organisation has become any more effective in the intervening period. It is my view that it has not. Yet it is not the Conference on Disarmament that stands in the way of this treaty. That is now about the nine countries that have not ratified it.

The final resolution of this matter represents a very complicated scenario if one considers that this is as much about foreign affairs as it is about weapons. We already know that France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation have not stood in the way and have ratified the treaty. We now face a situation where the future of this treaty depends on unreliable nations that play completely by their own rules. It is hard to see Iran or North Korea signing up to the treaty. It is open to speculation that the key to getting most of these nations to ratify the treaty is the USA. If the USA ratifies then it will be all the more difficult for the other nations, such as China, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel and Pakistan, to stand back. That of course brings it down to whether President Obama is able to get the US Senate to agree to ratification. It has been suggested that if China made a supportive statement on the treaty that would also assist in providing the domestic goodwill that would ease the opposition in the USA. The harsh reality is that there is great doubt whether nations like Iran and North Korea can be negotiated with and whether they can be relied upon to honour agreements. The other point is that what these countries may ask for may be too much to give.

In closing, I will say that Australia has an excellent record regarding the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We have a good history of work at the Conference on Disarmament. We can use this history for effective negotiation and advocacy in the ways that I have previously described. Every elected representative at federal or state level, together with every official in the service of Australia, must take the opportunity to speak for and advocate for the treaty and for every other treaty that Australia wishes to see in force. We have great potential and we must achieve that potential. I commend the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion forward and I commend the other speakers for the strong and bipartisan support that exists in this place for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact that we have now survived over 60 years of the age of nuclear weapons without descending into nuclear holocaust has been the cause of a lot of analysis and discussion. I think one factor that should be acknowledged is the role of the non-government organisations around the world that have stubbornly refused to recognise any legitimate role for nuclear weapons. They have helped ensure that a climate in which the use of nuclear weapons might seem legitimate could not arise. Just this afternoon I met with representatives of the United Nations Youth Association. Their South Australian president, Catriona Standfield, gave me a document making the case for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It is a great credit to these young people. It reminds me of this expression: never doubt that a small group of committed and dedicated people can change the world—it is, in fact, the only thing that ever has.

It is important to understand that the friction between the nuclear haves and the nuclear have-nots is alive and well. Throughout the history of the nonproliferation treaty, the nuclear haves have stressed nonproliferation—that is, making sure that no other country gets nuclear weapons—while the nuclear have-nots have stressed disarmament—that is, obliging the nuclear armed countries to get rid of their bombs. Developing countries complain of double standards. They point out that all of the IAEA inspections are of the non-nuclear states and say, ‘We don’t see “disarmament agencies” being set up by the nuclear haves, the countries with nuclear weapons.’

Too often this difference of approach has led to international stalemate. Clearly, we need to have action on both fronts—nonproliferation and disarmament. That is where the comprehensive test ban treaty comes in. This treaty bans parties from carrying out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion and requires them to prohibit and prevent any nuclear explosions in their territory. It is both a practical step towards disarmament and an effective non-proliferation measure. This treaty is incredibly important in halting the momentum for nuclear proliferation and ultimately ringbarks the nuclear weapons tree.

In order for the treaty to come into effect it still needs to be ratified by the United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Israel and Iran. That is a very tall order—small wonder it has not happened. The announcement by President Barack Obama that he supports ratification of the CTBT and will seek to have this treaty ratified by the Senate has given it new life and momentum. Its fate in the Senate is, however, uncertain and it is pretty apparent that prospects in the US could not withstand another unsuccessful attempt at Senate ratification. Therefore, President Obama is not expected to move on this until he is confident he has the numbers. The timing of this might not be helpful in terms of the forthcoming NPT Review Conference.

This need not reduce us all to impotent bystanders, wishing and hoping for the best from the Senate. Dr George Perkovich, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in evidence to the parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which is carrying out a major inquiry into these issues, that friends of the CTBT should go to the countries whose ratification of the CTBT is needed and seek their agreement that, if the United States and China ratify the CTBT, they will do so as well—that these countries will not be the impediment to the comprehensive test ban treaty entering into force. His second suggestion was very specific for Australia—that we should say to the United States Senate that signing of the CTBT is not abandoning US allies and that we do not seek the protection of the US nuclear umbrella and would welcome a world without nuclear weapons. I support both of those proposals.

Borrowing a little from the late great Edward Kennedy, the dream of a world without nuclear weapons is a dream that must never die. We must never accept that it is alright to live in a world where some people have the power to kill tens of millions of their fellow human beings and make the planet uninhabitable in a heartbeat. This must never be acceptable. I congratulate the member for Fremantle on bringing this motion before the House. It is very timely. I also commend the other members of the treaties committee who are contributing to this debate.

This is an issue whose time has come. We have the NPT Review Conference scheduled for next year. We need to re-energise the debate on both nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Given the shot in the arm, the stimulus, given to it by President Barack Obama in Prague earlier this year, this is the time for action to be taken.

John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Fremantle on this motion and I am pleased to join her in supporting it. As the members who have already spoken about its nature have said, there is no doubt that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is a very valuable and important plank in the whole suite of measures to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It has been in existence for over 60 years, and I can remember as a child not being able to sleep at night because of the media talking about the threat to the public of other countries’ nuclear weapons. In those days, it was different countries from the rogues of the modern era. I am very pleased that Australia plays an important and significant role in the treaty, and we are well regarded for the contribution we have made internationally in that respect.

The member for Wills mentioned the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and the recent reference from the government to conduct an inquiry into nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. While it is not my purpose to breach the normal rules of privilege that cover committee inquiries, I would like to say it was a very fulfilling task. With other members of the committee—the member for Wills, the member for Cowan and the member for Shortland—I was privileged to visit Geneva, Vienna, Washington and New York, which are the central locations for discussions on this matter.

The member for Wills is quite right about the timeliness of the motion by the member for Fremantle here today. There is a new optimism, and we all remain hopeful that President Obama can bring his congress along with him to back what he has made clear is his aim—to overcome the stagnating progress on the whole issue of nuclear nonproliferation and particularly disarmament, because it holds back those who want to challenge the ‘haves’ because they allegedly are ‘have-nots’.

The years of lack of progress have been very frustrating, but this new sense of optimism has actually renewed my own sense of enthusiasm. I had become somewhat cynical about the world’s capacity, even the capacity of the United Nations, to assist in the acceleration of progress on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, particularly progress on this particular treaty. It is a very sad reflection on the capacity for progress that the big ‘haves’ have not been willing to ratify the CTBT. So I am encouraged by this new optimism.

The motion moved by the member for Fremantle mentioned the international monitoring system, and it was very encouraging to see the part that Australia has played in the implementation of that monitoring system and to see where all the data is collected on the receiving end in Vienna, where it is housed. Not only has Australia provided sites for monitoring; professional Australian staff are also providing their expertise and experience to implement the rollout of the monitoring system as well as authenticate it so that no-one will doubt the observations that it records. It was very impressive to see that display. That system involves the collection of data on not only earth tremors but also gas emissions, which makes it unquestionable that a test has occurred when one does occur. When North Korea recently conducted a test, the world knew straightaway that somebody had set off a nuclear charge. We need to engage with and fund the ongoing activity to verify this monitoring system so that the data is unquestionable. Then we might all be able to sleep at night.

In conclusion, I commend the member for Fremantle for moving this motion. I express my renewed hope that we can establish a corporate world determination to bring nations like North Korea to account and I express my own renewed confidence in the capacity of the UN and its resources to progress the matter. While my view was once that the UN was an expensive and convoluted talkfest, it has been modified by the recent visit I was privileged to be part of. I commend the motion to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commence my contribution to the debate by commending the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion to the parliament and also for the work that she has done on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in relation to the current inquiry that the treaties committee is holding into nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. This is one of the issues, if not the most important issue, confronting civil society. Unless we can resolve this issue, unless we can have a world free of nuclear weapons, the challenges and the implications for the future are enormous.

As the member for Fremantle notes in her motion, there have been over 2,000 nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and 2009. In 1995 I travelled to Tahiti at the time that the last nuclear weapon was detonated in that country. Whilst I was there I met with many people that had lived there through the whole series of French testing. I kept in touch with them for quite a while after that visit to Tahiti. But over the years there have been fewer and fewer of them, until now there are none that I keep in touch with. And you might ask why. The answer is quite simple: they have all died. They have all died of cancer related diseases. That in itself is one of the issues that should make it so important for us as a parliament, and for the world as a whole, to confront.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, there is no winner. That is the important message: there is absolutely no winner. The country that has the biggest and the most weapons, the largest stockpile, is not the winner. Any nation that is depending on one of those countries for support is not a winner. And those other countries that do not have supplies of nuclear weapons are not winners either. As the member for Wills pointed out, there is a definite divide between those that have and those that have not. Those that have want to ensure that there is no nonproliferation and those that have not want to bring about disarmament.

I, like the other members that have spoken on this debate, am a member of the treaties committee. I went to Geneva, Vienna, Washington and New York and whilst I was there I felt some optimism, as did the other members. But I also felt that, after so many years and so many efforts by so many people, we still seemed to be debating the same issues over and over again. When we attended the Conference on Disarmament I was really pleased that an agenda had been agreed to, an agenda of work. But then I was quite disillusioned when I heard speaker after speaker with one particular view standing up and pontificating and delaying the appointment of chairs of those committees. So, whilst there was an agenda to be debated, it could not be debated because the proper framework was not in place.

I have been very heartened since President Obama came to power. I think that his speech on 29 May in Prague was one of those watershed speeches, one that set the agenda and showed that he is a person who is absolutely committed to nuclear disarmament. I think that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty must be fully ratified and I urge those nine countries that have not signed it—including the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—to sign it. I know that President Obama is working within the US to see that that country actually does sign up. It is very, very important, coming up to the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty next year, that this issue has the support of all nations. Once again, I commend the member for Fremantle for bringing this to the House and I think it is one of the most important motions that could be presented.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.