Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move:

That the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025, made under the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024, be disallowed [F2025L01226].

These regulations allow the US to bring their nuclear submarines to Australia as part of the toxic and bankrupting AUKUS agreement. This regulation itself scraps dozens of state and territory regulations on protecting the environment to allow nuclear waste to be dumped here in Australia. This is all part of making Australia an arm of the US military. That is the reason Australians were on US nuclear submarines that attacked an Iranian frigate and left the crew to drown, a situation I must note today is being discussed as a potential war crime. This disallowance and AUKUS is the reason Australia has just sent troops to Iran.

I note with some alarm, as I know many Australians do, the mission creep that we have seen in just over a week, since the very first strike against the Iranian leadership and the decapitation of the Iranian leadership by the US and Israel condemned internationally by most countries except Australia and a few US allies as being illegal—not a defensive strike or a pre-emptive strike but a strike that hit a sovereign nation. Whatever you think of the Iranian regime, the question we have to ask ourselves is: how is this going to make Australia and the world a safer place?

I also ask senators to reflect on the last time we followed the US into a forever war. How many times has this happened throughout history? How many times have we committed Australian military personnel—our sons, daughters, brothers, uncles, fathers and mothers—to go and fight in foreign theatres of war and found them in strategically, morally and ethically questionable circumstances, with the difficulty of pulling our military personnel out of these conflicts once they start the quagmire of death, destruction, pain, hurt and misery that they cause?

I remember all too well the 'weapons of mass destruction' con that was being bandied around by the US regime. At least they took that to the UN. It turned out that it was a complete con job. A brutal dictator who was going to use weapons of mass destruction was the excuse used to invade with the coalition of the willing, or what became known as the coalition of the killing. When they toppled that regime and implemented that regime change, it led to a shock wave of chaos and suffering not just across the Middle East but right across Europe, a wave of refugees fleeing persecution all around the world, the rise of ISIS and terrorism, the civil war in Syria—I could go on. All of this was triggered by a unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq that defied a rules based order.

And what did we learn over a week ago? Our government has backed in the bombing of Iran. It has been very careful with its language, saying, 'We didn't bomb Iran.'

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're not the ones who need to be careful with language. Did you hear what Senator Faruqi just said?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection, Senator Chisholm. Within 24 hours, the Prime Minister was backing it in, as was Senator Wong, talking about the Iranian regime's nuclear program. They didn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Actually, I thought Donald Trump had thoroughly debunked that himself, saying multiple times that he had obliterated the Iranian nuclear program—after hearing in March last year from his own intelligence agencies that it didn't exist and that there was no plan for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency also debunked that this week—another lie told to the Australian people. They say that the truth is the first casualty in war.

What did we hear after that was thoroughly debunked? Suddenly, we heard that Iran was going to strike us first—the US and Israel and its neighbours. That has also been debunked. It was debunked by the Pentagon two days ago. They said that there is no evidence that that was the case. The question is: why did the US and Israel illegally attack a foreign sovereign nation? What other lies are we going to be told? This is not just a war on Iran; this is a war on the truth. It's no wonder that Australians are sceptical. It's no wonder that they're anxious. They saw what happened when we followed the US into a forever war in past history. They question why we are joined at the hip with the United States government and why we have bases in Australia that we know are helping coordinate the attacks on Iran in the Middle East.

I bring senators back to peace and diplomacy. I must say that I was very frustrated when I saw Senator Wong's interview on Insiders the day after the first strike against the Iranian regime. She refused to condemn it, virtually backed it in and then called for a return to diplomacy and a rules based order so that this conflict doesn't escalate. How can you do that? How can you not condemn a clear breach of international law—like, by the way, what we've seen in Gaza—and then call for a return to a rules based order when it suits you? Of course we should be conducting diplomacy. They do say that war is failed diplomacy.

I can't understand why we've again gotten ourselves in a situation where we've got conflict spreading across the Middle East. I also remind senators of President George W Bush's famous speech on an aircraft carrier. He said 'Mission accomplished—an end to major hostilities'. What did we see after that? We saw an insurgency, and we saw an incredible amount of bloodshed. It wasn't just Western soldiers that lost their lives; it was hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and it spread into neighbouring countries.

When are we going to learn? When are we going to have an independent foreign policy where we can openly question the decisions of Donald Trump and Mr Netanyahu?

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one's stopping you.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are openly questioning—Senator Paterson, I'll take that interjection. That is exactly why we are raising these issues in the Australian Senate today—on behalf of, by the way, millions of Australians who are deeply concerned and anxious about this latest conflict and the potential for it to escalate not just to other Middle Eastern countries, as we are seeing, but much further abroad, with major powers being drawn into this. This is a very dangerous situation—I know you, Senator Paterson, would know that better than most people in this place—and we have an important role to play here, as Australian senators representing the Australian people, in, for example, raising this disallowance of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025.

I can sit down any time? Well, I've still got a little bit left. I'll take that interjection from you too. Thank you, Senator. McKim. The instrument—the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025—follows on from the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024. These regulations are extensive and clarify the changes made in the act—for example, providing further details on managing, storing and disposing of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine at Osborne and Stirling, including reporting requirements for a licence. These regulations also provide a map of the areas now considered a designated zone for AUKUS nuclear submarines and associated waste, which is referred to in the appendices. These regulations also override state and territory laws including the Protection from Harmful Radiation Act 1990 in New South Wales and the Radiation Protection Act 2004 in the Northern Territory. These regulations set out what international laws the regulator has to have regard to. These do not include the UNDRIP, which would require the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations people.

I know Senator Shoebridge is looking forward to making a contribution on this disallowance, and I thank him for all the hard work that he's done on behalf of the Australian Greens, the millions of people who voted for us and the millions of people who care about a rules based order, care about Australia having an independent foreign policy and care about peace and diplomacy and ending war. You cannot bomb your way to peace.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, where to begin on that contribution, this debate and this disallowance motion? I suppose I'll begin by putting on the record that the opposition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. It would be irresponsible and reckless to do so. We'll be opposing it because we support AUKUS—both Pillar I and Pillar II—but also because these regulations are necessary to facilitate the safe and lawful visitation of US nuclear powered submarines to Australian naval bases and facilities, including HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

When your own colleagues interject on you to say that you can sit down at any time, I think that's probably a fair indicator of how off-track your contribution has become, as Senator Whish-Wilson—

Thank you, Senator McKim. I'm grateful for that facilitation. Really, much of that contribution from Senator Whish-Wilson had nothing at all to do with the regulations. Some frankly bizarre claims were made as part of that contribution, including the assertion that the Australian government's announcement today that it would be contributing defensive military assets to the region following the strikes by Iran on its neighbours, who are not participants in the war in Iran, was in some way and somehow related to AUKUS. Points to Senator Whish-Wilson for trying to find a hook on the current news cycle for this preplanned motion on nuclear safety, but, of course, the reason why the Australian government made the decision to deploy an E-7A Wedgetail and 85 personnel and provide air-to-air missiles is that we had requests from the United Arab Emirates and other gulf states, and last time I checked they were not parties to AUKUS. There's a hint in the name of AUKUS of which parties are participants, and the UAE is not one of them.

We rightly made a contribution to that cause (a) because the UAE and other gulf states are our friends, and they generously provided the Al Minhad base for Australia for decades so we can operate out of there safely when we're in the Middle East; (b) because it's in our national interest that the waterways and airspace around the gulf states are restored to normalcy and peace so that Australians can leave the region by scheduled commercial flights and so that oil and other shipping can flow again through the Strait of Hormuz; and (c) because it's an opportunity for Australia to learn from the realities of modern warfare, which include drone and missile strikes. The Wedgetail in particular will be assisting gulf states to identify, interdict and prevent those drones and missiles from striking civilian targets in the gulf states, including hotels, roads and airports, which have been indiscriminately struck by Iran in recent weeks.

To summarise, the opposition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. We strongly support AUKUS Pillar I, and we strongly support the regulations that are necessary to ensure the safe and lawful access of US nuclear-powered submarines to Australian naval facilities.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to get a couple of facts on the table because, obviously, some of the debate we had earlier on from the Australian Greens was anything but accurate. The establishment of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator marks a key milestone in Australia's nuclear-powered-submarine program. It reflects the government's commitment to maintaining the highest levels of nuclear safety and stewardship across the life cycle of Australia's conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.

AUKUS is a central pillar of the government's national security policy, and we don't make any apologies for that. It is about protecting Australia, safeguarding our interest and ensuring the security of our region. Australia faces the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War, at a time when our economic connection with the world has never been greater. Our investment in conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines is, therefore, critical. It will provide the Australian Defence Force with greater capacity to project power, defend Australia and contribute to regional security and stability.

The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act and its regulations enable a new, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework to ensure nuclear safety across the entire capability life cycle. The statutory regulator has the functions and the powers necessary to license activities, infrastructure and facilities related to Australia's nuclear powered submarines and for monitoring and enforcing those licences. Importantly, the regulator remains independent of the regulated community, including the ADF, the Department of Defence, the Australian Submarine Agency and industry. The establishment of the regulator last year in November marked an important step in ensuring that Australia's nuclear-powered-submarine program progresses with safety as its core requirement. It also brings together expertise from across Australia and internationally, with a clear mandate to deliver independent, evidence based regulation.

The disallowance motion before us in the Senate puts this important work at risk. It is political grandstanding without considering our national security and safety. We get that the Australian Greens oppose AUKUS. That is their political position. But opposing AUKUS should not extend to undermining the independent regulator that is responsible for ensuring nuclear safety. Contrary to the misinformation of the Australian Greens, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act underwent extensive public consultation prior to its commencement. This included an inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, which held public hearings right across the country.

Let me also address some of the misinformation by the Greens that continues to circulate. The safety and security of Australians and our environment is at the heart of the regulatory framework. Australia will be responsible for the management and disposal of radioactive waste from our conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. This is a critical part of our commitment to responsible nuclear stewardship. These activities are an important step in building Australia's capability to safely operate and sustain nuclear powered submarines before we acquire our own.

It is also worth noting that the management of low-level radioactive waste is not new to Australia. Similar materials are already handled safely at more than 100 locations across the country, including hospitals, universities and research facilities. This type of waste includes items such as protective clothing, rags and fluids.

Australia will be responsible for managing spent fuel from our own nuclear powered submarines. But let me absolutely clear. Despite the scare campaign being run by the Greens, Australia will not accept or be responsible for the storage, management or disposal of nuclear fuel from United States or United Kingdom submarines. The independent Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator is ensuring that Australia maintains the highest standards of nuclear safety in respect of new nuclear-powered submarines.

Yet what we face is that the Australian Greens continue to choose to ignore the facts entirely and instead construct some sort of fantasy narrative about Australia being dragged into this 'forever war' that's been described. There is something deeply revealing about that. The Greens also seem to view every single international crisis through one lens: how they can attack Australia and its allies and its alliances, question our partnership and undermine the cooperation that deters aggression and maintains stability. Australia has, for a very long time, called the United States a friend and an ally, and we have relied also on the UAE as a partner in defence operations, including coordinated efforts to combat extremism and the ISIS threat. These relationships keep Australians safe, yet the Greens' focus is not on that, and it's certainly not on the current situation in Iran about the people of Iran. Their focus seems to be, here in the Senate, on scoring political points.

Whilst the Iranian people, if I might add, fight for freedom, all I can say is I think that the Greens just want to fight only to weaken Australia. They oppose our alliances. They oppose our defence cooperation. They oppose Australia playing any role in helping our partners to defend themselves, even when Australians themselves are in harm's way. This is a view that pretends that Australia can somehow opt out of the realities of international security. But, as responsible governments, we need to operate in a responsible way. Responsible governments consider the safety of Australians overseas. They listen to the advice of the Australian Defence Force and our national security agencies. They work with partners to prevent instability from escalating further. This is exactly what the Albanese government is doing.

It is very important that, as we go through the motions today, I want to be absolutely clear that this disallowance motion before us does nothing—absolutely nothing—to improve safety. It simply seeks to obstruct the establishment of a regulator whose sole purpose is to ensure nuclear safety. For that reason, the government will not support the motion before the Senate.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, the Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations allow the United States to bring their nuclear submarines to Australia as part of the toxic AUKUS agreement. Who can forget former prime minister Scott Morrison telling a lie to the French government as he did the dirty on them and instead, in one of his most bizarre thought bubbles—and, believe me, there were a number of such thought bubbles during his prime ministership—joining in the AUKUS pact with the United States and the United Kingdom. We know that AUKUS is going to put Australia at higher risk, and I want to give one contemporary example of how this is going to happen.

Cast your minds back to last week, when the United States and Israel opened up an illegal war on Iran—illegal under international law. You won't find a credible international law scholar anywhere in the world who will conclude that this is a justified and legal war, because it's not. It is an obviously and blatantly illegal war. Last week in the Indian Ocean, a United States submarine, without provocation, attacked an Iranian warship—which had just been, by the way, to India on a friendship visit—and did so with Australian submariners on board. We've heard from Labor that those Australian submariners were told, 'Stand down, knock off and have a beer, go to your bunks,' while the button was pressed and then somehow sprang back to duty later. To try and run an argument that they were not involved in that illegal act beggars belief. The survivors from that Iranian warship were abandoned to drown at sea, in direct contravention, I might add, of section 18 of the Geneva convention.

We then had the Foreign minister, Minister Wong, get up in question time and assert, with some vague proposition, that in fact that attack was justified under international law because there was an imminent danger that that Iranian warship was going to target somebody else. I'll tell you something: right through our history, humans have gone to war based on lies. We saw it in the Iraq War and we are seeing it here today in the war on Iran—the lie of imminent threat that was used by the US to start this illegal war.

We've got Australia refuelling US spy planes being used in the war and Australian submariners on board a US submarine that conducted the illegal sinking of an Iranian warship in the war, and Labor claiming they had nothing to do with it. And today we had the announcement that we are sending personnel, missiles and an aircraft into the war region on a defensive basis only. That is the next lie being told to the Australian people, because the arrival of those personnel and those assets will facilitate the raining down of an absolute firestorm on Iran and the deaths of countless innocent civilians who are paying for this illegality with their lives and their futures. The reason we can confidently assert that is that the AEW&C aircraft is a very scarce military resource in the region, and the arrival of the Australian AEW&C aircraft will allow a US AEW&C aircraft that could otherwise be used in a defensive role to move into an offensive role, thereby facilitating the illegal offensive conduct in this war on Iran. Don't believe Labor when they say this is for defensive purposes; it is going to facilitate an expansion of the war and the raining down of further horrors on innocent Iranian people.

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

I thank both my colleagues for their very clear articulation in this debate. I might bring it back to AUKUS. We have Labor and the coalition, two of the three war parties here, joined now by One Nation. The three war parties love AUKUS. You all come in here and want to wrap your arms around AUKUS, you love nuclear submarines, you like being told what to do by Donald Trump and you like putting Australia's national interest and defence in the hands of a sociopath who commences illegal wars. You all love this stuff, right? You love AUKUS. Then you have the hide, when the Australian Greens, on behalf of millions of Australians, say, 'We want an independent foreign policy, we want an independent defence policy and we want decisions about when Australian troops will be sent to war made in Canberra, not Washington,' to come in here, as the war parties, and say: 'The Greens don't care about the national interest. They don't understand. We have to be a lickspittle to the United States or, otherwise, we won't be safe. We have to be a gormless bunch of noddies to the United States or, otherwise, we can't be safe. The only way of being safe is to live in fear of Donald Trump. The only way to be safe is to offer the United States free range to our continental bases. The only way to be safe is, whenever Donald Trump asks us to send troops to the Middle East or Afghanistan or whatever the latest war is, to desperately comply within hours. Unless we become the lickspittle of the United States, we will never be safe.' You come in here and say that you are talking on the national interest. You surrendered the national interest from the moment you began this debate. The decision to send Australian troops into this most recent forever war of the United States wasn't made this week by the Prime Minister. It wasn't even made in Canberra. The decision to send troops into this illegal war was made five years ago when the war parties signed up to AUKUS. It was an inevitability. When you tie yourself to the United States you are joining them in every bloody war they choose, every one of their forever wars, regardless of the legality.

This war already saw over a 100 schoolgirls killed in the first 24 hours. It's seen acid rain poured down over Iran. It has seen the global economy enter collapse. We have this bizarre exchange between Labor, the coalition and One Nation about fuel prices and fuel scarcity as though it came as a surprise. When you set fire to the Middle East, you'll have problems with energy supplies. We have an answer to this: end AUKUS, detach ourselves from the United States and stand up for Australia. (Time expired)

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

The question is that the disallowance motion standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.