|
senate vote 2022-10-25#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-10-27 15:09:21
|
Title
Matters of Urgency — Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons- Matters of Urgency - Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - Signal intent to sign & ratify
Description
<p class="speaker">Dean Smith</p><p>The Senate will now consider the following proposal from Senator McKim, which is also shown at item 12 on today's Order of Business:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-10-25.128.1) introduced at the request of Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:*
- >
- > *That the government should instruct Australia's representatives at the United Nations to vote in the affirmative during the upcoming UN First Committee vote on the [Treaty on the Total Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons) and signal the government's intent to sign and ratify the treaty.*
<p class="italic">Dear President</p><p class="italic">Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">That the government should instruct Australia's representatives at the United Nations to vote in the affirmative during the upcoming UN First Committee vote on the Treaty on the Total Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and signal the government's intent to sign and ratify the treaty."</p><p>Is the proposal supported?</p><p> <i>More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having </i> <i>risen in their places—</i></p><p>I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers for this debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>On behalf of Senator McKim, I move:</p><p class="italic">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">That the government should instruct Australia's representatives at the United Nations to vote in the affirmative during the upcoming UN First Committee vote on the Treaty on the Total Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and signal the government's intent to sign and ratify the treaty.</p><p>I want to begin with a simple statement that makes me extraordinarily proud: the Australian Greens, from the moment of our inception as a political party, from the moment communities came together to combine their efforts in a common purpose called the Australian Greens, have wholeheartedly and without reservation supported the goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and prohibiting forever their use. As a Western Australian senator, I'm particularly proud to say, in speaking today, that I come from a political party, the Greens WA, which has the honour of being that party under whose name Josephine Vallentine, the very first senator to be elected anywhere in the world on an explicit platform of nuclear disarmament, served in the Senate.</p><p>For these 30-plus years, the Greens have worked with the antinuclear proliferation movement in Australia and across the world to advance the cause of forever eliminating the potential of a nuclear exchange ending all life on this planet. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is the best international tool we currently have for achieving that urgently needed goal. It is thanks to the tireless work of campaigners since its creation that many MPs in this parliament and many MPs across the world have proudly put their names to supporting that treaty's ratification and to their nations' signing up to that treaty. I am extraordinarily proud to say that every single one of my 16 Greens colleagues are open about their support and championing of the treaty.</p><p>This campaign work was so effective that the Prime Minister, then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, championed the ALP's election platform, including an explicit commitment to Australia signing and ratifying the treaty. He said in 2018:</p><p class="italic">Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created.</p><p class="italic">Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.</p><p class="italic">…   …   …</p><p class="italic">… Labor in government will sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.</p><p>That position has been re-endorsed at each and every subsequent Labor conference.</p><p>On 28 October, as part of the world Disarmament Week, the Australian government will have the opportunity to instruct our representatives at the United Nations to vote yes in a General Assembly vote on the question of support for the treaty. This motion before the chamber urges the government to take that position, consistent with its party policy, consistent with the views of its leader and consistent with the views of the foreign minister, which she expressed in New York recently. In speaking of the situation in Ukraine, the foreign minister said:</p><p class="italic">Mr Putin's weak and desperate nuclear threats underline the danger that nuclear weapons pose to us all, and the urgent need for progress on nuclear disarmament.</p><p>Well, the opportunity is about to come before this government for them to vote yes at the General Assembly on 28 October.</p><p>Since coming into office, they have taken only one step towards the ratification of the treaty: the sending of an observer to the first meeting of the parties in Vienna. That was a useful step, but more action is needed in light of the urgency of the issue. Australia must vote yes at the United Nations, and this government must—in line with its policy and platform—sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.</p> <p class="speaker">Raff Ciccone</p><p>I think we can all appreciate the ambition for a world that is free of nuclear weapons. All of us in this place have been unanimous in our condemnation of Russia's brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. And it's incredibly concerning that Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Indeed, the escalation of Russia's invasion is what has, in many ways, restarted the conversation about nuclear weapons and efforts to disarm. Recently, Russia deliberately obstructed progress at the 10th review conference of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty.</p><p>The Assistant Minister for Trade, Senator Tim Ayres, led Australia's delegation to the conference in New York and affirmed Australia's strong commitment to the treaty. After four weeks of negotiations, all parties were ready to agree to a meaningful and balanced outcome across the treaty's three pillars, which are disarmament and the non-proliferation of and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Russia's obstruction made an already difficult job unachievable, and hindered progress towards a safer world free of nuclear weapons.</p><p>But of course, concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not isolated to Russia. Just a few days ago, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Japanese counterpart condemned North Korea's ongoing development of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in the hands of states which show no regard for international rules based order is of particular concern to Australia and our allies. This brings me to why the government cannot support the motion that is before the Senate today but share's the ambition of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. But we must acknowledge the practical barriers that do stand in the way.</p><p>In order to sign the treaty, we must ensure an effective verification and enforcement architecture. Without this, any treaty isn't worth the paper that it is written on. Perhaps most importantly, for any nuclear prohibition treaty to be successful and practical it must achieve universal support. Surely everyone in this place can acknowledge that, if Australia's allies prohibited their own nuclear weapons while other states refused, this would be disastrous for our own national security and, indeed, international peace. To make any practical progress on disarmament, all nuclear-weapon states must be involved. Given Russia's deliberate obstruction of efforts towards prohibition, and North Korea's disregard for the security of the international community as it developed its own nuclear weapons, it is currently impossible to meet the criteria that would make any treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons practical.</p><p>Of course, this highlights the difficulty at the heart of this debate. Nuclear weapons pose a threat to all of us, and the world would be a safer place if they were all disarmed. But this threat is precisely why any treaty that does not include all nuclear-weapon states cannot be supported. Supporting this treaty would greatly empower those states which maintain their nuclear capabilities and present a grave threat to the international order. I understand the motivation for this motion, I admire its ambition and I hope it is one day realised. But the practicalities of achieving a nuclear weapon-free world mean we cannot support this motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>I note for the chamber that this motion proposes a significant change to Australia's longstanding position in relation to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The coalition notes that Australia has consistently made clear that the treaty, as it stands, does not offer a practical path to effective disarmament, nor does it enhance security. Not a single nuclear-possessing state has participated in its negotiations, nor have they signed or ratified the treaty. The treaty will not rid the world of a single nuclear weapon.</p><p>Australia has always considered the NPT, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—which includes nuclear-possessing states as signatories—as the foundation of global nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. What the government would need to explain if it went down the path of changing Australia's consistent position in relation to this treaty is how it will address the limitations of the TPNW, including lack of effective verification and enforcement processes. The government also needs to explain what any change to Australia's position would mean for our alliance with the United States as a nuclear-possessing state, for example.</p><p>The TPNW is notably different from other treaties which Australia has supported. For example, in relation to the NPT, the International Committee of the Red Cross notes that it can be seen as an agreement between non-nuclear-armed states, which surrender the option to develop nuclear weapons, and nuclear-armed states, which are obliged to work towards disarming and eliminating nuclear weapons. Secondly, the comprehensive test ban treaty bans all nuclear test explosions as a practical step towards nuclear disarmament and an effective nonproliferation measure which limits the technical development of nuclear weapons.</p><p>Australian was not a participant in the TPNW negotiations. Indeed, in October 2017 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade gave evidence to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at supplementary estimates which said:</p><p class="italic">… Australia is committed to a world without nuclear weapons through implementation of the NPT, including article 6, in a step-by-step and verifiable manner. But we will not sign or ratify the ban or the prohibition treaty because we don't regard it as an effective measure to eliminate nuclear weapons.</p><p class="italic">…   …   …</p><p class="italic">We also take the view that the treaty is fundamentally flawed, and risks undermining the NPT. That may reflect the fact that it was negotiated very, very rapidly; it does not involve any of the states that possess nuclear weapons; no such states are likely to join; and it will not eliminate a single nuclear weapon. It does not include viable mechanisms for the elimination or reduction of nuclear weapons, or for maintaining a world free of nuclear weapons.</p><p>I note Senator Ciccone's words in here this afternoon. In January last year the then Labor opposition welcomed the ratification of the treaty, but I do note the conditionality of that statement, which said:</p><p class="italic">We have committed to signing and ratifying the treaty after taking account the need to ensure an effective verification and enforcement architecture, interaction of the Treaty with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and achieving universal support.</p><p>So, given that the government apparently shares the concerns of the opposition regarding the absence of effective verification and enforcement mechanisms, we would call upon the government to justify any change to the longstanding position Australia has taken on this treaty. Given the complete absence of nuclear-possessing states as parties to the treaty, the opposition would call on the government to explain how it would meet that benchmark of universal support before Australia agreed to sign and ratify the agreement. Given those stated concerns of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the treaty risks undermining the very important NPT, we'd also call upon the government to guarantee that any decision to sign and ratify the TPNW would not have a negative impact on either Australia's or the global commitment to both the NPT and the comprehensive test ban treaty.</p><p>We have a strong record on nuclear nonproliferation. We've always welcomed further progress towards the universalisation of the NPT. I'd also note what a great pleasure it was to see eminent Australian Dr Robert Floyd elected to lead the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization as its executive secretary in 2021. To note from the media release of the time, as the first executive secretary elected from the Indo-Pacific, this appointment demonstrated Australia's active commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament and our practical contribution to multilateral cooperation. With its 185 state signatories, the CTBT aims to end nuclear weapons testing worldwide, and I know that Dr Floyd, whom I regard very highly, will play a critical role in supporting the treaty's objectives. There are outstanding questions for any government who would examine the TPNW for ratification, and I've laid those on the table today on behalf of the coalition.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|