Regulations and Determinations — Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025

Peter Whish-Wilson

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

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

Peter Whish-Wilson

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 _I__nsiders_ 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

No-one's stopping you.

Peter Whish-Wilson

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

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.

Long debate text truncated.