Barry Wakelin (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As a uranium exporter, what steps does the government take to contribute to the international non-proliferation regime? Is the minister aware of any concerns about Australia’s approach, and what is the government’s response?

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. After all, I think he has the world’s second largest uranium mine in his electorate. With the expansion of that mine, it will eventually overtake in size the Canadian mine, which is currently the largest. I know that the honourable member has been a great supporter of the Roxby Downs project. Next year will be the 30th anniversary of the Australian nuclear safeguards policy. This policy, introduced by the Fraser government in 1977, has been a great success. Under this policy, Australian uranium can be used only for peaceful purposes. It must be subject to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Australian uranium must be protected under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. In 2005 we made an amendment to the policy under which IAEA additional protocols allowing access at short notice at any location would be a condition of the new supply of uranium to non-nuclear weapons states. Australia has a very solid nuclear safeguards policy. As an IAEA board member, we have been one of the main advocates of IAEA activities, including most recently in relation to Iran.

I was asked whether I was aware of any concerns about Australia’s policy. I had not been aware until the Leader of the Opposition announced that he was doing a backflip on Labor’s so-called three mines policy—a policy that he did not think was in need of change a few weeks ago and suddenly he decided, for reasons of his own, that it had to be changed.

What is interesting about the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made was that he was going to introduce three specific strict new measures to Australian exports of uranium. What this revealed was that the Leader of the Opposition simply had not done any homework and did not know what the existing policy was. He said that we should only export to NPT states. Well, we do only export to NPT states. That is a longstanding Australian government policy. He said that he promised the strictest safeguards in the world. We already have the strictest safeguards, and I think it holds Australia in very good stead that we do. Thirdly and most interestingly, he said he wanted a diplomatic initiative which would bring together—

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bowen interjecting

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Prospect is warned!

Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

countries involved in the uranium fuel cycle. Since 1978 Australia has been a leading member of precisely such an organisation—the Nuclear Suppliers Group. What is interesting about the Leader of the Opposition is that this is once more a revelation of the character of the man. He makes a backflip because, of course, he is weak and he has not done his homework; he does not know what the existing policy is. For those people in the Labor Party caucus who are well-known champions of the three mines policy and run the old uranium scare campaigns, which are very much out of the 1960s and the 1970s, the Leader of the Opposition, in wanting to change the three mines policy, offers them his three point sop, which is to embrace the government’s existing policies. I am afraid that exposes the Leader of the Opposition for the weak and lazy opposition leader that he is.