Penny Wong overruled her department and insisted on sending an observer to the first meeting of countries that support a landmark United Nations treaty banning nuclear weapons, new documents reveal.
A trove of documents obtained by Guardian Australia under freedom of information laws shows nervous officials warned the foreign minister of “significant” risks if Australia went to the gathering in Vienna shortly after last year’s election.
Those risks included that “Australia’s attendance could be misinterpreted as a first step” in actually joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which is opposed by the United States and other nuclear weapons states.
Despite Anthony Albanese championing the treaty prior to forming government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also issued a general warning that joining the agreement “could carry risks for our strategic interests”.
The relatively new treaty imposes a blanket ban on developing, testing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons – or helping other countries to carry out such activities.
It now has 92 signatories, 68 of which have formally ratified it, and is strongly backed by neighbours such as Indonesia and New Zealand.
Australia has not yet taken steps to join the treaty, and continues to consider its position. The Labor party committed to sign and ratify the treaty after considering a range of factors that appear to be high hurdles to pass.
But anti-nuclear weapons campaigners were heartened by the decision to send government backbencher Susan Templeman to the Vienna meeting in June.
Australia followed that up by shifting its position at a UN committee in October to “abstain” after five years of actively opposing the treaty under the Coalition.
The newly released documents show Dfat formally recommended against sending an observer to the first meeting of TPNW members.
Officials conceded that attending would “attract praise from its proponents” and “may help to offset criticism … about Australia’s commitment to the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime”.
“However, in light of the ALP’s pre-election position on TPNW, Australia’s attendance as an observer could be misinterpreted as a first step in acceding to the treaty,” the submission to Wong in June said.
The department added that if the minister decided to send an observer anyway, “a concerted diplomatic effort will be required to mitigate the risks” and to “minimise the significance of the decision” to attend.
Wong circled “not agreed” to the main recommendation and asked for further advice about the impact of sending a backbench MP.
Dfat then provided a new submission saying that if Australia was the only country to send a parliamentarian as an observer “we will need to manage potential perceptions” and “shape the narrative”.
“Public messaging will be necessary in light of strong domestic and international interest,” it said in an attached strategy document.
“Key to any messaging … will be to highlight that no decision has been made on our broader approach to the Treaty.”
Gem Romuld, the Australian director of the Nobel prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said it was “time for Australia to dispense with the dangerous, outdated notion that nuclear weapons bring security”.
“It’s clear that certain officials at the foreign ministry are intent on maintaining the previous government’s unprincipled position on this treaty,” Romuld said.
“We’re pleased that minister Wong has insisted on taking a new direction.”
Labor’s national platform in 2021 included conditions for supporting the treaty, including working for universal support and effective verification and enforcement.
Wong’s spokesperson said the government was “engaging constructively to identify realistic pathways for nuclear disarmament” and that was why the minister had signed off on Templeman’s attendance as an observer.
“The government will consider the TPNW systematically and methodically as a part of our ambitious agenda to advance nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament,” the spokesperson said.
In November, the US embassy in Canberra warned that the TPNW “would not allow for US extended deterrence relationships, which are still necessary for international peace and security”.
That was a reference to Australia relying on American nuclear forces to deter any nuclear attack on Australia – the so-called “nuclear umbrella” – even though Australia does not have any of its own atomic weapons.
Wong’s spokesperson said there were “a number of complex issues to be considered” and Australia would “engage closely with our international partners – including the United States – as part of this process”.
“The government has reaffirmed that the US alliance remains central to Australia’s national security and strategic policy,” the spokesperson said.
The documents also reveal Dfat officials warned in August against uniting with other countries to sign a statement of concern about the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons.
The submission to Wong said: “While this might provide an opportunity to counter the narrative that concern for humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons must equate to support for the TPNW, the statement includes wording that nuclear weapons are never to be used again, ‘under any circumstances’. It is unbalanced.”
Dfat argued Australia had “already affirmed our deep concern at the humanitarian impact of weapons use”. In that case, Wong approved the official recommendation.
But Romuld said the statement was “a factual acknowledgement of the undeniably devastating humanitarian consequences of any nuclear weapons use, backed by over 140 governments and the International Committee of the Red Cross”.
Australian officials continue to emphasise the importance of the longstanding Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Another document shows Australia’s goals for the NPT review conference in New York in August included “to provide reassurances that Aukus partners are steadfast in their commitment to the global non-proliferation regime and will set the highest possible standards in our acquisition of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines”.
