Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1)

recognises the strategic importance of India to 21st century global geo-politics; and

(2)

encourages the Australian Government to reverse its short-sighted decision to cancel Australia’s uranium sales to India.

Tonight I want to speak about the greatness that is India, a country of profound importance to Australia. Before I continue with my contribution in the parliament tonight, I want to acknowledge the Honorary Consul of India in Brisbane, Professor Sarva-Daman Singh, who very kindly invited me to the 61st anniversary celebrations of India’s independence that were held in the Ryan electorate. Professor Sarva-Daman Singh is a constituent of Ryan and a very distinguished Ryan resident. He is very learned and works at the University of Queensland, where his reputation is very significant. I also want to take the opportunity to thank and endorse my friend the member for Mitchell. I know that he has a very large number of constituents of Indian descent in his electorate. I am sure that they will continue to support him for his strong representations on behalf of the Indian community in the Mitchell electorate.

India is a country rich in culture and tradition. This is a country of over one billion people. This is a country that is the world’s largest democracy. This is a nuclear power. This is a country strategically located in South Asia. India holds memberships of international councils, including the UN, the Commonwealth, the WTO and the East Asia Summit. This is a country whose economy is growing. Mr Singh, the Prime Minister of India, in 2007 said of his country:

Today, India is very different from the India of 1991. It is now a vibrant market-place. Our entrepreneurs are aggressively investing overseas ... We have a US$700 billion economy that is growing at 7–8% ...

So, clearly, this is a country that is on the move. This is a country that matters today in global politics, but it will matter even more in the foreign policy decisions of all countries in the decades ahead. Indeed, India is a country that will play its part in shaping the geopolitical landscape and architecture of the 21st century.

Therefore, as the federal member for Ryan—having a very good relationship with the hundreds and hundreds of Ryan constituents of Indian descent and certainly having a deep interest in the views of the Indian community—I want to say very clearly on the record here in the House of Representatives that I am certainly for India, and Australia must certainly be for India. The Howard government was certainly for India, with its decision to enter into an agreement last August to sell it Australian uranium. The Rudd government makes much of its international expertise and its vision, but it is the Rudd government that cancelled the agreement forged by the Howard government. The Rudd government must now state clearly and publicly whether it believes that Australia should sell our uranium to India.

In a positive move—I want to acknowledge it as a positive move—the Foreign minister, Mr Smith, indicated at the August 21-22 meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group that Australia would support the deal. If Australia had opposed India at the IAEA or the NSG—where, because we have the world’s largest reserves of uranium, we are a significant voice—it would have been a savage blow to the Australia-India relationship. But, as we now know, most regrettably, on 24 August, the 45-member NSG refused to lift its 34-year-old embargo on nuclear trade with India. Why is this important? It is important because, under the Nuclear Suppliers Group rules, all nuclear trade with India is banned.

Critically, uranium sales to India would allow it to develop its civilian energy capacity. This, of course, would help combat global warming by allowing the world’s largest democracy to develop zero-emissions polluting nuclear energy. Notwithstanding the collective decision of the NSG, the next step for the Rudd government is to reverse its ideological opposition to selling uranium to India, and I call on the Rudd government to do this. Supplying uranium to India and helping it to move more to nuclear energy would be the single greatest course of action that this country could take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the world’s largest democracy. It seems, however, that the Rudd government is stubborn and implacable; it remains ideologically opposed to uranium sales to India. (Time expired)

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rise of Asia, in particular China and India, is one of the defining features of the 21st century. It is an exciting development for Australia, for the region and for the world. India has turned outwards and is engaging at an intensity not seen in the second half of the last century. Although India still faces many challenges, its liberal democracy, free press and independent judiciary as well as vibrant civil society give enormous reassurance that it can overcome the challenges that it faces. What we are seeing is remarkable. The commercial genius of Indian entrepreneurs is being released, with stunning results. India has established rates of economic growth of seven to eight per cent per annum. One can only applaud this incredible transformation that we are watching unfold: the return of India to the centre of global industry and commerce. India’s rise will inevitably make it a strategic power. It has begun to focus on Australia’s area of traditional diplomatic interest, East Asia, as a market and as a key area for its security interests.

Australia welcomes India’s rise and its greater interest in East Asia. The government has stated publicly that it supports India’s permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council as part of the United Nations reform. We welcomed India as a founding member of the East Asian Summit and we will support India’s membership of APEC when the moratorium ends in 2010. We are moving to steadily strengthen our defence cooperation with India.

Australia has also made as a priority the raising of bilateral relations with India to a new, higher level. Both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade have hosted their Indian counterparts. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wishes to visit India later this year, and other senior ministers are likely to visit over the coming months. Australia has also been invited to be an observer in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, SARC, which is a clear indication of our growing standing in India and in its region. The government is committed to taking the relationship to a new, higher level and we are determined to bring it to the front rank of our bilateral partnerships.

Perhaps I could say something now about uranium, the second point raised in this motion. The member for Ryan has clearly failed to understand the important responsibility that Australia bears in holding the world’s largest reserve, of uranium. It is incumbent on this nation to act responsibly as a secure supplier of energy resources to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to lead by example in the application of strict nuclear safeguards to uranium exports. This government strongly supports the cause of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. In line with this support, it is this government’s policy to supply uranium only to those countries which are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and with which Australia has concluded a bilateral safeguards agreement. This has been a longstanding position of the Australian government.

It is worth remembering that, as long ago as 1976, in considering the development of uranium deposits in the Northern Territory, the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry under Justice Fox considered the complex issue of ensuring that adequate safeguards existed against diversion of uranium exports to weapons making. In his report, Justice Fox recommended:

No sales of Australian uranium should take place to any country not party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Export should be subject to the fullest and most effective safeguards agreements, and be supported by fully adequate back-up agreements applying to the entire civil nuclear industry in the country supplied ...

It is worth remembering that this recommendation was accepted by the then Fraser government. India is not a party to the NPT and, on this basis, Australia will not supply uranium to India. This is a policy of principle. It is a longstanding policy. It is not directed specifically at India, but it is important that we approach this issue with consistency. Australia’s influence in the international arena is dependent on our credibility—we must behave in accordance with our stated aims. To do otherwise would undermine our credibility and risk Australia’s standing in the region.