Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year the Australian Red Cross has launched its campaign to raise awareness of the horrific humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. It is a campaign of great consequence, as we all know of the absolute destruction these weapons can cause. One of the most iconic images from history is undoubtedly the ruined Hiroshima peace dome standing alone amid the destruction of the city.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have been at the heart of the issue of nuclear weapons from the outset of the debate. By continuing to raise their grave concerns, and through their role in developing international humanitarian law, the movement contributed to the creation of additional protocols to the Geneva conventions in 1977. These protocols strengthen the distinction between civilians and combatants and reaffirm a commitment to no unnecessary harm being caused to civilians during times of war. Of course the destruction caused by nuclear weapons means that they fail to meet this principle.

There is a growing global interest in nuclear disarmament, with the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom reaffirming their 'responsibility to take concrete and credible steps toward irreversible disarmament' at a United Nations conference on nuclear weapons in May last year. This is positive, and the International Committee of the Red Cross and other bodies associated with disarmament should be commended for their work in both helping to ensure increasing interest as well as capitalising on the commitment from the P5 of the United Nations Security Council.

Our world does not want to contemplate nuclear war. It must have faith that diplomacy can overcome such a threat, as it did during the Cuban missile crisis. Our leaders must focus on the devastating humanitarian costs, as the Red Cross does, and remember that a nuclear weapon does not discriminate. Its path of destruction includes civilians, hospitals, doctors, land for farming, food and water. A nuclear bomb not only wipes out a city; it also wipes out so much more. As the Vice-President of the ICRC, Christine Beerli, noted;

… the debate about nuclear weapons must be conducted not only on the basis of military doctrines and power politics but also on the basis of public health and human security.

Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.

These are compelling words. We cannot have this debate without considering the humanitarian costs, but neither can we ignore the world in which we live—the instability, uncertainty and threats which lie within our anarchistic international system. Should a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation willing to use it, the consequences would be devastating. That is why the reaffirmation of the P5 last year was important and why I commend the International Committee of the Red Cross for continuing its cause. The sentiment among nations is against the threat or use of nuclear weaponry, and this has been increasing for some time. From the International Court of Justice decision in 1994, which said:

There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control

to the five-point plan on nuclear disarmament submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2007, we see the recognition and abhorrence of nuclear war. I commend the ICRC and other bodies associated with this cause and I too hope to see nuclear weapons become part of our past, not of our future. (Time expired)