Senator LUDLAM (9:55 AM) —I am hoping this one does not cause a division, actually, but I suppose we will see. I move:

   That the Senate notes:

(a)   the ‘unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI’, agreed by consensus at the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference;

(b)   the statement made by Australia on 30 April 2008 at the NPT Preparatory Committee meeting that, ‘at an appropriate time, the international community will likely need to consider complementary legal frameworks, including a possible nuclear weapons convention, for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons’;

(c)   the statement made by the then Australian Labor Party foreign affairs spokesperson, Mr Robert McClelland, on 17 September 2007, that the proposal to establish a Nuclear Weapons Convention is ‘timely and responsible’ and that ‘[u]ltimately the question to be asked is not why there should be a nuclear weapons convention but why the international community has not yet agreed to start negotiating one’;

(d)   the recommendation contained in report 106 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that, ‘the Australian Government make clear in international fora its support for the adoptions of a Nuclear Weapons Convention’ and ‘allocate research and consultation resources to the development of a Nuclear Weapons Convention with a clear legal framework and enforceable verification’;

(e)   the Australian Government sponsored International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament report statement that, ‘An important project for the medium term will be to develop, refine and build international understanding and acceptance of the need for a Nuclear Weapons Convention—a comprehensive international legal regime to accompany the final move to elimination’;

(f)   the first proposal in the United Nations Secretary-General’s five-point proposal on nuclear disarmament urges, ‘all NPT parties, in particular the nuclear weapon-states, to fulfil their obligation under the treaty to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to nuclear disarmament. They could pursue this goal by agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments. Or they could consider negotiating a nuclear-weapons convention, backed by a strong system of verification, as has long been proposed at the United Nations’; and

(g)   the 10 March 2010 resolution of the European Parliament on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which noted:

   ‘a.   a distinct lack of progress in achieving concrete objectives in pursuit of the goals of the NPT Treaty ... coupled with greater demand for, and availability of, nuclear technology and the potential for such technology and radioactive material to fall into the hands of criminal organisations and terrorists,

   b.   that nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the NPT are delaying action to reduce or eliminate their nuclear arsenals and decrease their adherence to a military doctrine of nuclear deterrence,

   c.   called on Member States to make a coordinated, positive and visible contribution to the 2010 NPT Review Conference discussions, in particular by proposing an ambitious timetable for a nuclear-free world and concrete initiatives for revitalising the UN Conference on Disarmament and by promoting disarmament initiatives based on the “Statement of Principles and Objectives” agreed at the end of the 1995 NPT Review Conference and on the “13 Practical Steps” unanimously agreed at the 2000 Review Conference’.

Question put.