 Well, our guest today is Mr. Yuuki Amano, Director-General of International Atomic Energy Agency since 2009, following a very distinguished career in the Japanese Foreign Ministry, head of the Disarmament Nonproliferation and Science Department, member of a number of UN expert panels and a very active and effective delegate at successive Nonproliferation Treaty Review conferences over a very long period. So welcome to ANU and it will be delightful to have you today doing our annual John G Memorial Lecture, which is a tradition established in this university to have people who speak on arms control and disarmament related issues, which is of course your specialty. So Mr. Amano, can I begin by asking you, you've had a pretty tumultuous time over the last eight years with Fukushima catastrophe in 2011, the Iran nuclear deal, very controversial, coming to a head in 2015. You've had the Nuclear Security Summits wrestling with the issue of dangerous nuclear material, locking it up away from rogue states and terrorists. You've had the issue of the Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conferences, very successful in 2010, but very disappointing in 2015. With that and many other things on your plate, what has been your biggest challenge or a number of your biggest challenges over the eight years that you've been in the job? There are a number of issues and Iran nuclear issue has been on the top of the agenda for many years. There have not been any progress in the beginning years, but fortunately since 2013, we witnessed some changes and last year we could reach, I mean, the five countries plus one. There was an Iran-wished agreement and there was also a bilateral agreement between Iran and IAEA. We are now monitoring and verifying the agreement. This is one example, but we made progress in the area of nuclear safety, nuclear security and currently, a very important issue for us is to contribute to the attainment of sustainable development goals which were just adopted last year in the United Nations. Well no doubt you'll be talking about those SDGs and the nuclear dimension of that in your speech, but let's concentrate on a couple of the other issues beginning with the Iran nuclear deal. How confident can the rest of the world be that the monitoring and safeguards machinery that has been put in place as part of this deal will in fact ensure that there is no breakout? From the verification point of view, we have now a very strong tool to verify and monitor the agreement. The normal comprehensive safeguard agreement is fully implemented and additional protocol, very powerful verification tool is now in place. On top of that, we have transparency measures agreed in the joint comprehensive plan of action. On the other hand, the nuclear activities of Iran has reduced in dimension and nature. So we have more powerful tool for verification to monitor and verify the reduced activities of Iran. So from the verification point of view, this is a net gain. We have well trained, experienced inspectors and now we are allowed to use our capacities. So we are very confident that we can discharge our responsibilities. Well a lot of eyes are going to be on you over the next few years and I guess we're all just got our fingers crossed that that will hold together, notwithstanding the sometimes very difficult politics of this. But look on the issue of safety and security, which you mentioned, there's a report just come out in the last few days about the Government Accounting Office in the United States doing a little experiment in seeing how easy it was for a potential rogue group to gather up season 137 or other radioactive material, the makings of a dirty bomb. For all the effort that's gone into President Obama's nuclear security summits, four of them now, do you think we're really making progress in addressing this concern about the reasonably ready availability of this material? I am very confident that progress has been made. A very good example is the entry into force of the amendment to the convention related to the nuclear security. The amendment widens the scope and nuclear facilities and material in the territory will be subject to the control in the future. The amendment was some agreed in 2005, but it has not entered into force for such a long time and just recently it entered into force. We are the depository of this amendment and we are looking forward to help countries to implement it. This is only one example, but we have provided more than 3,000 equipments for the detection. We have trained border guards, we have trained custom officers, and we are collecting the information on illicit trafficking of materials. I am not saying that we are perfect, but it is very certain that progress has been made. We need more cooperation from countries. We need more countries to ratify the amendment and strengthen their activities. At the end, strengthening the nuclear security is the responsibility of countries and IAEA is in a position to help them. Of course, nuclear security and safety became very big issues, both of them in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. It has also made a considerable impact on civil nuclear energy programs, particularly in Europe, where many governments have been very spooked by that experience. In your judgment, does civil nuclear energy really have a major future or are we going to see a jump straight into reliance on other renewables like solar once the technology of batteries and so on can be established? Has nuclear had its day or does civil nuclear have a big future? The Fukushima accident was a huge accident and it gave a negative impact to the confidence of nuclear power. However, after the accident, the minister agreed to a declaration. Action plan was agreed at the IAEA conference and that has been implemented. So, nuclear safety has been strengthened and we have learned a lot of lessons. What we can say now is that safety culture has strengthened by far. At present, no one questions the concept, safety must come first, which was not the case in the past. And if we look at the facts, the 65 reactors are under construction in the world now. We make estimates every year and our estimates, even after the Fukushima Daiichi accident, shows that many countries continue to include nuclear power in their energy mix and we foresee increase, steady increase by 2030. Nuclear renewables have a lot of advantages, but like other sources of electricity and energy, it has disadvantages. Each type of energy has advantages and disadvantages. So, the traditional wisdom is to achieve the best mix of energy. Should Australia go down the path following the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission of establishing a big international high-level waste depository, how significant a contribution would that be making to global efforts to solve this problem? I have visited Adelaide before and had a meeting with the Premier, Mr. Weatherill. And I'm very grateful that I was updated on the latest progress. We understand that South Australian government has completed the report and now the government, the South Australian government is in the process of consulting with the citizens. The decision has not yet made and after the South Australian government makes a decision, it will be brought to the attention of the central government. The role of the IAA for now, we don't have the position and we do not intervene in the decision of member states and we are following closely this development. But if this idea takes shape, there will be relevant elements for the IAA, like safeguards or safety or liability or nuclear security. I was hoping you'd be a little bit more enthusiastic than that because after all, this is not something that's just a commercial venture in Australia's interest. It is potentially in the world's interest, given the intractability of the waste disposal problem. Surely you're reasonably keen to see a few more players come into the game when it comes to effective disposal options. I think many countries are following the development of this idea, including us. And as some development takes place or progress makes place, this will attract more attention, I think. Let me just finish up by asking you about the Nobler-Faration Treaty and the Review Conference disappointment of 2015. Because of the perceived foot-dragging on the part of the nuclear weapons states when it comes to their outing for six disarmament obligations, this continues to meet a lot of resistance and create a lot of difficulty in getting consensus at the review conferences on strengthening certainly the NPT regime. And we've seen that scenario play itself out. Do you feel that the NPT itself, the treaty regime itself is at risk as a result of that failure to get consensus about moving forward that's been evident in 2015? I do not think that the treaty itself is some indention. It continues to offer the cornerstone for the global non-proliferation regime. But it's a pity for us that the peaceful use of nuclear technology has not received sufficient attention. NPT has three pillars, and peaceful use is one of the important issues. So we would like to do more in contributing for the use of nuclear technology by member states. Well, I'm sure we're going to hear more about that part of the story from you in the lecture you're about to deliver. But one very last question about the humanitarian consequences movement, which must resonate with you as a Japanese national and bearing the scars still of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You are aware, of course, of the worldwide movement by many, many countries to try and get new momentum into the disarmament debate, the Article 6 debate, if you like, based on that humanitarian dimension. What's your view about the desirability or utility of beginning discussions on a nuclear weapons convention to ban outright nuclear weapons at this stage? Would this be productive, counterproductive, or just unproductive? The IAEA is in support of myself, including myself, is in support of whom are free from nuclear weapons, and we are supporting the non-nuclear weapon free zones, and we are making expertise on verification available to implement the nuclear disarmament agreements. But we are not the negotiation body of nuclear disarmament, but we are very happy to make our experience and expertise available if they are relevant to the country's concern. Well, it's great experience and it's great expertise that you represent and your agency represents. We are delighted to have you here at the Australia National University, and we wish you well for the continuation, remainder of your term, and for future terms, as the Director-General of the IAEA. It's a very, very important international body, and its leadership and the commitment that you've shown to these issues is tremendously significant for the future safety and sanity of the world. So thank you very much, Mr. Amano. Thank you very much.