Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: An imminent deal between the United States and India that will exempt India from restrictions on nuclear trade will pave the way for Australia to commit to a bilateral agreement with India on the export of uranium, recognising:

(a)

the dangers of undermining nuclear weapons safeguards by selling uranium to a non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;

(b)

the extent to which nuclear energy provides a solution to the problems associated with climate change;

(c)

the prospect of the Government taking control of uranium reserves from anti-mining states.

For this government, uranium mining is an ideological act of faith. Very early in its term of office, it declared that restraints on uranium mines should go. Roxby Downs would subsequently expand fourfold, and in situ mines like Beverley and Honeymoon would get the go-ahead. China would be encouraged to come to Australia and open up new uranium mines to be part of the great mining boom that is filling government coffers right now. And then, more recently, it has declared that Australia itself will go down the nuclear power path, leading the world in a resurgence of interest in nuclear power.

The nuclear power industry is on its last legs. No new reactors have been commissioned in the United States, for instance, in the last 25 years. They cannot deal with the depleted uranium that comes from the uranium enrichment process or the highly radioactive waste from their reactors around the country. Yucca Mountain Repository, which is being imposed on the state of Nevada, is already oversubscribed—and it has not even been agreed to, let alone constructed. No doubt, Mr Bush would love to unload his radioactive waste on another hapless but willing country like Australia, and no doubt this country would be willing, given half a chance.

The Howard government went ahead with the new reactor at Lucas Heights without having a repository to take the waste from either the old reactor or the new one. But the push to export uranium to India is what this current motion is all about. My question today is: is it worth the risk? The price of uranium has certainly increased, but it is not big dollars in the scheme of things. Estimates for the deal with China, for instance, are that, at most, it will be worth $300 million to Australia. Most countries will conclude that nuclear reactors are too expensive, and they will look for other options. China wants to expand its nuclear power from two per cent of total energy generation to six per cent by 2020, but it will be increasing its target for solar and wind energy from 12 per cent of total energy generation to 15 per cent by the same date.

But the most serious problem with the proposal to sell uranium to India is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. India is one of four countries outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that are known to have nuclear weapons. A United Nations report earlier this year said the international community is approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation. At least 40 countries have the technology now to build nuclear weapons at relatively short notice.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has already been weakened by the attitude of the United States—and, indeed, of Australia—which accuses the new weapons states of North Korea and, possibly, Iran of going against the treaty but not the existing nuclear weapons states with their 27,000 nuclear warheads. The last nuclear non-proliferation treaty review was a chest-beating exercise that went nowhere on disarmament, and Australia was happy to sit back and do whatever America asked. It will not get behind the middle-power initiatives, the nuclear-free zones or the new weapons convention proposals as far as I can see, and now we see why. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is being undermined so that we can sell our uranium to India with impunity by providing some false guarantees about making sure our uranium does not get into bombs. We have to ask the question: why is India being given an exemption from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? And the answer, I am afraid, is that it is expedient.

Another question that has been raised is about Pakistan. Pakistan is already asking: ‘Why not us? We’d like Australian uranium as well.’ The answer, typically, is because India has been good and has not passed on technology to non-weapon states. That is a good thing, but India is still outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its acquisition of nuclear weapons is a demonstration that it can be done and the sanctions will be no more than a slap on the hand. Not long ago it was thought likely that the first nuclear weapon to be exploded since 1946 would be by one or other of these two warring countries—that is, India or Pakistan. The tensions are still there, and who is to say that this little act of generosity on the part of the Australian government to one of them, namely India, will not inflame them and lead to that most feared of outcomes? What are Australia’s responsibilities under other international agreements such as the United Nations resolution 1172 or the Rarotonga treaty? In May this year—just three months ago—Minister Macfarlane emphatically ruled out exporting uranium to India on the grounds that it would undermine the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What has changed in the last three months? Why is it now okay when then it was not?

Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change: it is too expensive, it is too slow, it uses too much water and, finally, Australians do not want it. If the Prime Minister’s polling says otherwise, why not put it to the test? I challenge the Prime Minister to take his referendum, or his plebiscite, to the people on this issue at the upcoming election, particularly to those most likely to have a reactor in their suburb, on their bit of coast. Instead of running around and pretending to oppose council amalgamations and offering to give people a say in the matter, what about doing this for one of the most contentious issues of our time? What about asking people’s views on going to war without the consent of parliament as well? Or what about selling Telstra? Put that to the people as well. What about asking the people of Western Australia how they feel about their state government being overruled so that uranium can be mined there? Perhaps there is a limit to the Prime Minister’s recently discovered push for democracy. We certainly know that Indigenous people are not getting a say on how they are being treated in the child abuse intervention. The list of ways in which this government has denied democracy is far too long for this debate.

Whilst low in emissions at the generation of electricity stage, other aspects of the nuclear cycle are very heavy greenhouse gas emitters, and that is another reason for opposing nuclear power. Everything from mining to enrichment to facility construction to reprocessing to waste management to transport is incredibly greenhouse intensive. Dr Jim Peacock, the Australian Chief Scientist, said:

Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change.

That is what scientists have said around the world, but for some unknown reason—or reason best known to this government—the Prime Minister still keeps saying that nuclear has to be part of the answer. Again, it is a case of the Prime Minister intervening in state responsibilities, and I ask the question: where is this likely to end? Does the Constitution allow the takeover of the mining of uranium in Western Australia? I doubt it. We are already exporting 30 per cent of the world’s uranium, and it seems unlikely that there is any pressing need for us to override any state responsibilities to open up new mines.

So there is a can of worms in the government’s proposal on its deal with India. There are real risks and serious dangers in further undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The guarantees that have been talked about are hardly worth the paper that they are written on. We know that if India is supplied with Australian uranium there will be tensions in the region, particularly with Pakistan, and it is not at all clear what this will do in terms of relations in that part of the world.

To summarise, there are serious dangers in us supplying India with uranium. The nuclear power industry is not going to solve the world’s climate change problems. It is certainly not a solution for Australia, and we should not be going down that path. The prospect of the federal government takeover of uranium reserves from WA in order to facilitate more uranium there is an assault on democracy, a very silly approach in terms of Commonwealth-state relations and not something that would appear to be easy to do under our current Constitution.