HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. S.M. Kanck:

1. That this Council notes—

(a) That 21 September was International Day of Peace and on 27 September it will be 52 years since the first explosion of atomic weapons in our atmosphere at Maralinga;

(b) The proposal by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, for an international commission to revive the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and

(c) The existence of the Luarca Declaration which claims a human right to peace; and

2. This Council commends the United Nations Youth Association of South Australia for their campaign on nuclear weapons non-proliferation and disarmament.

(Continued from 24 September 2008. Page 188.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:26): I rise to commend the Hon. Sandra Kanck for her motion on peace and nuclear weapons. With all that is happening in our world, the need to remain ever-vigilant in the pursuit of a peaceful, safer existence for all of us is always with us. It is with this in mind that I am heartened that our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called for a new international commission to bolster the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in June this year—the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. Australia can play, and is playing, a useful role in ensuring that the treaty remains relevant—or becomes relevant again—in today's world.

The aim of the commission is to establish a global agreement on how best to approach the reinvigoration of the treaty—a treaty that was formed in a world very different to the one that exists today. The non-proliferation treaty opened for signatures in 1968 and came into effect in 1970. When we look at what was happening in the world at the time, we can see just how much the world has changed. The year 1968 was the year that Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr were assassinated. We were on the brink of the second wave of feminism, and Mao Zedong and Elvis Presley were still alive and rocking.

Between the opening for signatures and the treaty coming into effect, Golda Meir became the first female prime minister of Israel, and Yasser Arafat was appointed leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The Stonewall riots marked the beginning of the modern gay rights movement, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and John and Yoko staged a bed-in for peace. Cold War hostilities continued and, in 1969, the US and Russia were bound in strategic arms limitation treaty negotiations. The year that the non-proliferation treaty came into effect, a topping-out ceremony was held for the North Tower of the World Trade Centre in New York.

From this distant point in history, the world has obviously changed significantly during the life of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and, with a review of the treaty coming in 2010, the federal Labor government decided that it was important that all parties come together to discuss how we can stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons before the review takes place.

This is not just an issue for treaty signatories. It is a global issue, and has to be approached as such. We need the current signatory nuclear powers around the table, but we also need to hold an ongoing dialogue with India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. The commission provides one way for that dialogue to progress. Lack of signatory status has not precluded, and does not preclude, non-signatory countries building up nuclear supplies. In September, the Nuclear Suppliers Group chose to resume trade with India, a decision that does not require India to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

We cannot ignore the reality that the treaty, whilst still having an important role to play in world peace, was created in a vastly different world to the one we occupy today; or the dangers of excluding nations from the ongoing debate. The world needs to ensure that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which has been, arguably, quite successful in controlling nuclear armament proliferation) remains relevant. The commission is co-chaired by former Australian foreign affairs minister Gareth Evans and former Japanese foreign minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, and includes representatives from Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, South Africa, France, Pakistan, India, Germany, the United States, China, the United Kingdom and Mexico.

The first meeting of the international commission was held in Sydney in October this year, and the commission plans to meet another six times in the next two years. Details of the first meeting are being kept under wraps for the moment. There are still about 26,000 nuclear weapons around the world today, and we need to ensure that these weapons are not used and, hopefully, are significantly reduced in number. The level of destruction their use could bring would be cataclysmic and unthinkable. As co-chair, during a break in the commission's first meeting, Gareth Evans said:

The scale of the havoc and the devastation that can be wreaked by one major nuclear weapons incident alone puts 9/11—almost anything else—into the category of the insignificant.

Because of this potential we must ensure that prior to the review of the non-proliferation treaty in 2010 we look at ways in which to make the treaty more relevant. The sad reality is that, as with too many of these things, in recent years some signatories themselves have basically ignored the requirements laid out when it has suited them. I know that Gareth Evans is aware of this. He said:

In the last decade or so, the international community has been sleepwalking when it comes to this potentially catastrophic problem.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has 187 signatories, five of which are nuclear powers. The framework is there to ensure that the treaty continues to do that for which it was intended; that is, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and furthering the aims of disarmament. The establishment of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament can play a significant role in ensuring that this occurs. I commend the Hon. Sandra Kanck for a very important motion, and I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:31): On behalf of the opposition I indicate that we support the motion. The production of nuclear arms is an unequivocal threat to humanity and we do not support the existence of nuclear arms anywhere in the world. In light of their existence we support binding international rules for the responsible transfer of all conventional weapons. Recognition of the International Day of Peace is a paramount step in strengthening our attitudes about the impacts of nuclear arms.

However, given South Australia's potential uranium market, the implications of mining and exportation must be considered extensively in this parliament. We do not have a nuclear power industry in South Australia, but there is a possibility that at some point in the distant future the issue of uranium enrichment for exportation of that product may be visited by this parliament. Enriched uranium is a critical component in the production of both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons. We certainly do not want to hinder the growth of our mining sector, but decisions about the treatment of uranium which is mined in South Australia are globally significant.

I wish to add to this discussion that the state Labor government has maintained a closed mind to the future of uranium enrichment or nuclear power generation in South Australia. It will be something that, I am sure, in the decades to come this parliament will have to address. These issues need to be considered with account given to science, the economy and informed public debate.

Australia is on the brink of a significant expansion in uranium mining, with some significant projects under discussion in Western Australia. As that expansion occurs, Australia will be looked upon increasingly by other countries as a viable and important source of uranium. Already India is continuing to lobby extensively at political levels to win access to Australia's uranium. The Rudd Labor government backed away from the agreement to sell uranium to India for clean energy solutions—an important step in the fight against climate change, given India's level of carbon emissions.

We maintain a great interest in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because it will dictate the potential uses of uranium which we sell. Therein lies our contribution to the maintenance of peace throughout the world. It was under the Howard government that Australia co-authored the original resolution in the United Nation's General Assembly First Committee, where peace and security issues are dealt with. This was the first step towards developing, adopting and implementing a comprehensive, legally-binding treaty establishing international standards for the trade in all conventional arms.

As the Hon. Sandra Kanck has said, our federal colleagues previously stated their expectation that nuclear weapon states would pursue disarmament commitments vigorously. The revival of that treaty—which has weakened—is a positive step, and the creation of an international commission to mandate that revival could be potentially beneficial.

However, I will add that this commission, set up by Prime Minister Rudd, simply resurrected previous Labor government initiatives, such as the Canberra commission. It is disappointing to see that the commission set up by Mr Rudd so far simply appears to be a group of concerned notables that the Rudd government expects to successfully move nuclear-weapon states towards disarmament.

We hope to see some measurable progress from the first International Commission on Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament meeting, held in Sydney in October. What is really needed is a plan of action brought to the debate on nuclear proliferation. We will have to wait and see whether the commission, which has been given $3.5 million from the government, actually delivers any measurable outcomes. We fully support the policy of only selling uranium to treaty signatories and we must ensure that that treaty remains significant and successful in arms control.

I also add that the Liberal Party supports (very much so) the work of the United Nations Youth Association. The cornerstones are the promotion of the peaceful use of uranium and the maintenance of the non-proliferation treaty commitments. I indicate that the opposition is pleased to support the Hon. Sandra Kanck's motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:35): The Greens are pleased to support this motion. Like most members, I rarely get to the end of the newspaper, but I was glad to have read a bit deeper than usual into The Advertiser of 8 November this year, because in the lift-out Review section there was the extract of a speech by Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is an extract of a speech that he made on 21 October this year at the John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I will read a few sentences from the Secretary-General's speech. He said:

The world is facing acute challenges in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation...there is widespread support throughout the world for the view that nuclear weapons must never be used again. We need only look at their indiscriminate effects, their impact on the natural environment, their profound implications for regional and global security.

Nuclear weapons produce horrific, indiscriminate effects. Even when not used, they pose great risks. Accidents could happen any time. The manufacture of nuclear weapons can harm public health and the environment. And, of course, terrorists could acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear material.

Most states have chosen to forgo their nuclear option, and have complied with their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Yet some states view possession of such weapons as a status symbol. And some states view nuclear weapons as offering the ultimate deterrent. Unfortunately, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has proven to be contagious.

The Secretary-General then goes on to say:

There are also concerns that a nuclear renaissance could soon take place, with nuclear energy being seen as a clean, emission-free alternative at a time of intensifying efforts to combat climate change.

The Secretary-General does not say whether he agrees with that statement: he just says that that is one of the prime movers of the renaissance, but what he went on to say is most important in terms of this motion. He said:

The main worry is that this will lead to the production and use of more nuclear materials that must be protected against proliferation and terrorist threats.

At the very end of this article he does congratulate the present Australian government. He says:

I am pleased to see leaders stepping up to move us in the right direction. I applaud the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament announced by the prime ministers of Australia and Japan recently.

So there is the UN Secretary-General speaking on this matter, but inherent in his comments is a contradiction, and it is a contradiction that Australia has not openly addressed. I give you an example: I have on my computer a small video clip that is one of the ALP's election advertisements from the 1977 federal election. A number of members here will remember that quite clearly. This TV advertisement from the ALP shows two naked babies playing with a hand grenade. One of the babies is doing what all babies do and puts the hand grenade into its mouth and chews it. It is a terribly chilling but very effective advertisement but what is most interesting is the voice-over:

When we mine our uranium, we're playing with the future of generations to come. Waste from our uranium stays dangerous for 250,000 years. What the ALP wants is enough time to find a safe way of disposing of it. Uranium— Play it Safe. Vote ALP.

That is the voice-over, written and authorised for the ALP by David Coombe, John Curtin House, Canberra.

I have had a lot to say in this place about the nuclear industry, and one of the themes that I cannot get away from is that the nuclear industry, even South Australia's role in it in mining uranium, comes with the ghoulish twins of nuclear weapons and nuclear waste, and I do not think we can separate those out from our role in the nuclear cycle. So, I do support this motion, and I urge the state and federal governments not to lose sight of the fact that our domestic policies do, in fact, have real implications for world peace.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:41): I thank the Hons Ian Hunter, David Ridgway and Mark Parnell for their support for this motion; I think it is an important one. I know some members occasionally will say that it is not the place of this chamber to deal with international issues. However, we are citizens of the planet, and I believe that it is something that we should give our attention to. I think there are a number of international issues we should be looking at. Since I moved my motion, we now have a President elect of the United States who can come somewhere near to pronouncing the word 'nuclear', so I think we have moved forward a bit in the past couple of months.

I am delighted that the motion is going to pass, and I know that the members of the United Nations Youth Association, who were responsible for my moving this motion in the first instance, are also going to be delighted. When I spoke, I mentioned that part of the campaign that association is waging at the moment, called Drop the Bomb, includes trying to encourage the members of this parliament to become members of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND).

So, if as a consequence of this motion there are members in this place who would like to join PNND, I would be delighted to provide them the details of how that can be achieved. I think that is one of the things we should be involved in. It is part of the critical mass that is needed to redress the burgeoning number of nuclear weapons that has happened while we have not been paying attention. I think a motion like this is timely in drawing to our attention once again that there is a problem and that we do need to address it.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT