Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to make some comments on the Non-Proliferation Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 [2007]. I begin by saying that there seems to be an incredible amount of hypocrisy in both government and opposition ranks in relation to nuclear. First of all, we have a government introducing this bill to strengthen Australia’s efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and to support international measures ensuring the physical security of nuclear material and facilities, and that is an excellent aim. However, at the very same time that it says it wants to support non-proliferation, we know that the government is not going to use the power it has in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to block the US-India nuclear technology deal.

The non-proliferation treaty has already been weakened and undermined by the activities of various governments around the world. The United States has now actively undermined that treaty by having signed a nuclear deal with India, which is not a signatory to the NPT. There is no way you can justify that deal; it is outside the non-proliferation treaty, and Australia says it upholds that treaty. The Nuclear Suppliers Group makes all its decisions by consensus and one country can block. Why did Australia refuse to block that deal? The only assumption I can make is that Australia fully intends to get on the coat-tails of President Bush and his push into India by agreeing to sell uranium to India. That will be stage 2 of the process. Australia might say something, although that is highly unlikely since there have been news reports already that the US is relying on Australia’s support at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting to support the deal and the only opposition it expects will be from the Scandinavian countries.

Let us put on the record first of all that we have a government saying that it wants to strengthen Australia’s efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons but which is prepared to support the United States in doing precisely that. The government is prepared to stand by and do nothing; in fact, it rubs its little hands together waiting for profits to roll in from expanded uranium mining at Olympic Dam.

The same can be said for the Labor opposition. It says it supports the non-proliferation treaty yet it has made very clear that, while it would oppose the India-US technology deal, it would not block that deal. So ‘opposing’ is just taking a principled stand while not using the power to block that deal. Ultimately we will see whether in fact both parties in Australia will support expanded uranium exports going not only to China but also to India.

The second thing I noticed is that the bill amends the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 to extend the geographical jurisdiction for offences related to proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons by an Australian citizen or resident anywhere. I wonder whether the government can see that in fact that might end up referring to it or its own members, because you cannot build a nuclear power station without running the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation down the track. You cannot go to enrichment without giving a very strong signal to all the countries around you that you are nuclear-ready—that you are able, at any time, to say you will withdraw your facilities from IAEA inspection and become a nuclear weapons state. Would Australia ever do that? There would be people who would say, ‘No, never,’ but we have a history, as we have found after years of it being hidden, that Australia in fact was exploring the nuclear weapons path some years ago.

I am rather concerned that at one level Australia is saying, ‘We do not support the proliferation of nuclear weapons,’ and at another level Australia is moving to expand uranium mining, the construction of nuclear power facilities and the development of a nuclear waste dump. The government have already changed the law to say that ANSTO can manage all these waste dumps and that ANSTO has control of the material. Secondly, they have changed the law to say that they can override objections from the Northern Territory and, as a result of other test cases, no doubt other states, forcing them to have waste facilities. Thirdly, they have changed the law to say that they can now nominate a site for a nuclear waste dump without having to take into consideration the views of traditional owners about the nomination of the site, and they have now changed the law to say that, having nominated a site, they can approve the site by taking away procedural fairness, saying: ‘We don’t believe Indigenous people should have procedural fairness. We legislate to say we won’t give them procedural fairness in terms of these waste dump sites.’

Australia is now saying that we want to go the whole hog here. The Prime Minister is talking to the US about getting Australia involved in George Bush’s global nuclear energy partnership. President Bush has said he wants a group of nuclear suppliers around the world which will lease enriched uranium and fuel rods and then take back the high-level waste not only from where it came but from elsewhere. This, of course, would facilitate President Bush, who is having an awful lot of trouble getting up a waste facility in the US because Yucca Mountain is turning into a disaster for him and his presidency, and there is nothing he would like more. What a surprise that, coincidentally, we have Mr Hugh Morgan this week backing a nuclear power station when last year he said on the record that the best use of land in outback South Australia would be for a global nuclear waste dump. He also said it would improve Australia’s international standing to building a high-level nuclear waste dump to take the world’s nuclear waste.

I am concerned about the number of backroom discussions occurring around this country. The Prime Minister is also talking to Mr Ron Walker, Mr Hugh Morgan and Mr Robert de Crespigny about their plans for a nuclear power station. Then we read in the paper today that Mr John White—who was on the government’s Uranium Industry Framework—has also set up his own company. To me that sort of thing smacks of insider trading: somebody already involved in a global push for leasing of nuclear fuel and building waste dumps has been appointed to a government appointed committee, the Uranium Industry Framework, which has insight into what the government is doing. At the same time he is setting up a company with a view—in his case, I am not sure whether it is for a reactor or a waste dump—to establishing facilities associated with expanding Australia’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle. Mr John White has been a long-time supporter of building waste dumps in Australia and of enrichment and taking back high-level waste. I find it somewhat amazing that on the one hand the government is bringing forward the Non-Proliferation Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 [2007] and on the other hand it is removing safeguards left, right and centre—and the rights of Australian people left, right and centre to have any kind of input in the discussion about nuclear facilities in Australia.

We know that Mr Ziggy Switkowski’s report says that we could have up to 25 reactors by 2050. We know that reactors use huge amounts of water. We know that to maximise their effectiveness they have to be within 100 kilometres of major built-up areas—that means coastal Australia, close to large cities. Then we come to decommissioning. Who will be paying the full cost? I notice that this bill talks about permits for decommissioning. Interestingly, there is never any reference to who pays for decommissioning. Businessmen of the kind we have just spoken about would never talk of nuclear power being a cheaper option if they had to pay the full costs of decommissioning a plant. The decommissioning of Lucas Heights is estimated to be around $50 million.

Who will have to take on not only the full cost of decommissioning but also the full cost of insuring the plant? It would be interesting to know whether the government had already given these men an indication that it would underwrite the plant against any damages claims. Undoubtedly they would get private insurance, but that private insurance will be given in part on the basis that government underwrite it. So I would be very interested to know whether the Prime Minister in his encouragement of his associates to go down the track of a nuclear reactor has also given them an undertaking that the government would underwrite it and that the full cost of decommissioning would be passed on to somebody else, not to them. If those costs were incorporated you would never, ever have anyone in the private sector considering nuclear. Everywhere that it exists in the world it is backed by governments because it is not economical. Look at the situation at the moment of the Dounreay plant, which is being decommissioned. Multiple millions of British pounds are going into considerations about what to do about decommissioning in the future.

I note that, to reassure Australians, we are going to do something about increasing the penalties for people who try to get access to and provide nuclear materials illegally, and I agree that is a good thing. I share the concerns of some of the citizens groups in Australia, such as the Medical Association for Prevention of War and Friends of the Earth, that some provisions could apply to citizens groups who are trying to protest against the construction of new nuclear facilities in Australia. The government says that is not the intent, but over the past 10 years we have seen the Howard government’s erosion of the community’s right to protest, attacks on freedom of speech for whistleblowers—and certainly no protection of whistleblowers—suppression of reports, threats to scientists’ research grants and so on. So I am concerned that this is yet another way of hindering genuine protest activity and the communication of legitimate protest information. I note that the government says it will take that into account, but I would like to hear from Senator Ian Campbell an absolute and unequivocal statement in relation to the legitimate right to protest about new nuclear facilities in Australia. It is of considerable concern to me that, increasingly, there is a culture of fear and intimidation in Australia which is permeating the public sector. Even in today’s papers I noted a number of op ed pieces pointing to just that: that democracy is in a fairly weak state in Australia because citizens are being increasingly denied their civil rights.

I think the intent of the bill is laudable, but I think it comes before this parliament at a time when we are seeing people speak in a very duplicitous way about the intentions of the government down the track in relation to nuclear matters. Whilst the government may have laudable intentions, the fact is that once you start down this path you are facilitating proliferation around the world, because the more nuclear facilities you provide the greater the risk of terrorist activity and attacks, especially if we go down the enrichment path. That has been of grave concern because of the Khan network—nobody disputes that. From his position in Pakistan he illegally distributed nuclear material around the world, and we are still suffering the consequences of the Khan network.

The hands on the doomsday clock were moved forward recently, suggesting that since the height of the Cold War we have never been closer to a nuclear incident, or even an attack. The current situation in Iran is not something to be smiled at. I am surprised that the government finds it amusing that I should mention the hands on the doomsday clock, because I do not welcome reading in the paper every day the heightened concern about Iran. I certainly do not like the talk of increased threats to Iran from the US in particular, the talking up of the hawks’ view of the world, and I would like to see a diplomatic solution. The Iranians are saying that they want to develop a civilian nuclear power plan and strategy. We are saying that we do not believe them and we do not trust them. But on the other hand we are saying that we can go down this path because the safeguards agreements make certain that there can be no illegal or secret activity. If we can be certain that there is no illegal or secret activity here, why can’t we be certain of that in Iran? My view is that you cannot be certain because when you have nuclear power generation and the movement of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste around the world you open yourself to increased risks of nuclear proliferation.

That is why we would be much better off leaving the uranium in the ground rather than driving the proliferation of weapons around the world, which ultimately we are doing when we load up the world market with more uranium. As the Chinese ambassador to Australia said a couple of years ago, China does not have enough uranium for both its weapons program and its civilian power program, and that is why it wants Australian uranium. So it does not matter whether you put it straight into the nuclear power program so that they can displace their own uranium into their weapons program or whether you put it straight into their weapons program, Australian exports of uranium into China will facilitate China’s weapons program. There is no other way of looking at it.

We are also facilitating the export of nuclear material into Taiwan. Australia is also having discussions with Russia—the last meeting was in December—about selling uranium to them. So it seems to me that, whilst we may have a non-proliferation legislation amendment bill in the house, we have a very different agenda and a much more careless approach by our actions: it is a case of saying one thing and doing another.