Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Democrats urgency motion, moved by Senator Allison. I must say at the outset that I think it lacks a bit of clarity. I am inclined to vote for it, but I am not quite sure what it meant to say. It is an interesting discussion document. I think I will vote for it, because I basically agree with all the assertions, but it does not hang together very well. With all due respect to whoever drafted it, it needs a bit of drafting work. But we are not allowed to do that. Essentially, I support the sentiments and most of the claims made in the motion. On that basis, on balance, we are going to vote for it.

At the outset, it is important to note that the US-India uranium deal is not really imminent, as it still requires ratification by the US congress and the Indian parliament. Indeed, the US  congress will examine the 123 Agreement against safeguards and conditions laid out by congress in the Henry Hyde Act—the US legislation which paved the way for the deal to be signed. Before any supply of uranium can occur, the Nuclear Suppliers Group—of which Australia is an important member, as a major uranium supplier—will receive a submission from India to be granted exemptions under the NPT. For India to import uranium, the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group will need to be changed. Why? Because the present arrangement is that the Nuclear Suppliers Group will only support the export of uranium to nations which have signed the NPT. Britain, France and Russia are supporting India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the indications so far, although they have been a little all over the place on it, are that the Howard government may also support India in that forum. A Rudd Labor government would not do so. Labor’s national platform on uranium exports clearly states that Labor will allow the export of uranium only to those countries which, inter alia, are signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Therefore, Labor would not support the export of uranium to a nonsignatory as it would further undermine and weaken an already fragile non-proliferation regime and, in my view, equally undermine the Australian uranium industry.

Labor recognises that security weaknesses exist in monitoring the global use of uranium. The director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, has made it clear how much work is required to strengthen the nuclear safeguards regime. Labor have recognised this and acknowledged it with recent changes to our national platform, which now includes a strengthening of our policy on safeguards. Labor will actively pursue more effective international export control regimes, through the IAEA, and tighter controls on the transfer of nuclear technology. Our 2007 national platform commits Labor to reinvigorating diplomatic efforts towards nuclear disarmament and the responsible use of nuclear technology.

Labor does not believe India is responsible for the illicit trafficking or proliferation of nuclear technology. Indeed, we understand why India is frustrated by the current non-proliferation regime. But there can be no doubt that the NPT, although requiring reform, is the bedrock of the international nuclear safeguards regime and further undermining of the treaty would not be in our best interests. Instead of writing cabinet submissions seeking approval for the export of Australian uranium to India, Labor believes the foreign minister should be urging and leading the way to greater global nuclear safeguards cooperation.

The Howard government should join Labor in campaigning for wide-ranging reform of the NPT to encourage India to join. The Howard government’s exuberant promotion of nuclear power is cause for concern, particularly given its weakness on the issue of nuclear nonproliferation. For instance, in 2006, with two other nations, Australia voted against a United Nations resolution moved by Mexico. The resolution called for a conference specifically focused on nuclear dangers that would include non-nuclear non-proliferation treaty states. Also in 2006, Australia abstained from voting in support of a UN motion to reactivate the issue of nuclear disarmament and specifically ‘accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments’.

Australia has also voted against a UN motion calling for nuclear disarmament within a specified time frame, legally binding negative security assurances and an international conference on nuclear disarmament. Under the Howard government, Australia has also voted against a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, including calls for the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Australia consistently abstains on the UN resolution that calls for multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention. In short, this is a mountain of evidence that the Howard government is not prepared to encourage strong, internationally agreed safeguards. Our concern is exacerbated by their extremely poor record in the area of nuclear nonproliferation.

I think that the second issue raised in Senator Allison’s motion, which is the extent to which nuclear energy provides a solution to the problems associated with climate change, is a useful issue to raise because there is going to be an increasingly vigorous debate in this country about whether Australia should pursue a nuclear energy industry.

The Howard government, for want of a climate change policy and for want of anything to offer with regard to tackling climate change, has seized upon nuclear energy as some sort of quick fix for the problem that climate change represents to Australia. In looking to pursue nuclear energy as its response, Labor believe the government is going down the wrong path. We do not support the development of a nuclear energy industry in Australia. We know that for some countries nuclear energy is seen as a viable energy option, but they do not enjoy the energy choices that Australians take for granted.

Labor is adamant that Australia does not need nuclear power or enrichment and that we should not become the world’s nuclear waste dump. Australia has established domestic power industries with strong skills bases, massive capital assets and considerable public support. The strength of these industries and the scale of their resource bases mean that nuclear power would struggle to compete economically.

The Prime Minister’s own nuclear review, led by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, found strong economic arguments against nuclear power in Australia. It noted that our access to low-cost coal and gas meant that nuclear energy would be up to 50 per cent more expensive than electricity from fossil fuels. Dr Switkowski’s report also noted that high up-front costs of regulatory approvals and construction are drivers of that unfavourable comparison.

The review also found that nuclear energy may only become economically viable in Australia if a carbon tax or emissions trading value of up to $40 per tonne is levied on CO₂ emissions. Even then, the review acknowledged that significant government support—taxpayer support—would be required to offset the cost of establishing a regulatory framework and developing the skills needed to build nuclear facilities in Australia.

On top of the up-front capital cost, and the unknown cost of government subsidies to get the industry started, the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal is also uncertain. In March 2007, the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimated that the total cost of decommissioning Britain’s 20 nuclear sites was £70 billion—up from an estimate of £56 billion the year before.

The decision to develop a domestic nuclear power industry would also mean Australia accepting the safety risks inherent in nuclear energy generation and taking on the problem of radioactive waste storage. Critically, any domestic nuclear power program would also face considerable challenges in gaining the necessary levels of public support. All senators would be aware of the difficulty faced over the last 15 years in establishing a disposal site for our existing radioactive waste. The difficulty in gaining public support for a nuclear power industry should not be underestimated.

The task for Australia in developing energy options to respond to climate change is not to develop a new nuclear industry but to put our vital fossil fuel industries on an environmentally sustainable footing and to build our renewable energy capacity. Australia’s coal and gas industries are vital not only for domestic power generation but also for our economy. Coal represents more than 10 per cent of our exports by value and provides around 30,000 jobs. Rather than developing a nuclear power industry, we need policy that focuses on developing clean coal technologies, which will clean up our fossil fuels and protect our economic interests. That is why Labor’s clean coal initiative is a key element of our response, and it has to go hand in hand with considerable efforts to boost our renewable energy capacity.

The Howard government has chosen a different course and seems committed to implementing the Prime Minister’s nuclear vision—although I think we are seeing some nervousness on the part of many on his backbench. The Prime Minister has already indicated that he believes that nuclear power is the cleanest and greenest form of electricity. In April, he announced a number of measures that his government was going to take to progress his vision of a nuclear powered future. Those included repealing Commonwealth legislation prohibiting nuclear activities, including provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The government has already committed Australian taxpayers’ money to fund research for the Generation IV advanced nuclear reactor research program. We know that a director of Nuclear Fuel Australia, an Australian company proposing a domestic nuclear enrichment plant, has been in talks with the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources regarding the enrichment project. He has made it clear that he thinks his prospects of developing his proposals depend on the coalition winning the next election. He is certainly right about that.

John Howard has also recently got the backing of the Liberal Party Federal Council, which unanimously called for the establishment of nuclear reactors and high-level waste dumps in Australia. In addition, the Prime Minister has charged ministers and departments with preparing work plans which are expected to be presented to cabinet next month for implementation in 2008, should the government be returned. We know from Senate estimates hearings that these plans will include options to override state bans on nuclear power, which would eliminate the final protections Australians have against the imposition of a nuclear power plant in their region.

Clearly, at the coming federal election, Australians will have very real choices to make about Australia’s energy future. Labor’s future energy mix of clean coal and gas, geothermal, solar, wind and other renewable energies is in stark contrast to John Howard’s plan for 25 nuclear reactors dotted around our coastline.

The government’s indication that it is seeking advice on overriding state bans on nuclear power brings me to the final point raised in Senator Allison’s matter of urgency—the overriding of state controls on uranium mining within their borders. Industry minister Macfarlane has been campaigning for some time for state governments in Queensland and Western Australia to end their opposition to uranium mining. He was recently reported as saying that he was investigating suggestions that Commonwealth powers could be used to determine uranium mining policy in those states. Given the extraordinary extension of Commonwealth powers into other areas of state responsibilities in recent days, this should come as no surprise. The government is clearly looking to extend its powers in a whole range of areas, and it seems that uranium mining and nuclear energy may just be another of these.

The decision on whether or not to allow uranium mining within their borders is rightly a decision for state governments. That is Labor’s view. In modifying our position on uranium mining and export this year, federal Labor asserted the rights of the states to make decisions regarding land use and mining within their borders. Both the WA and Queensland governments were elected at their respective last state elections on the basis of a policy platform which included a continued commitment to refuse applications to mine uranium. For Premiers Beattie or Carpenter to submit to Minister Macfarlane’s pressure and allow uranium mining would be a reversal of commitments those premiers made to their electorates. For the federal government to override those restrictions would be a direct contravention of the policies Western Australians and Queenslanders voted for at the last election.

I have publicly expressed my personal view a number of times that the state restrictions will be removed. But their removal, in time, is a state matter. It is a state political issue and it should remain so. I respect the Labor premiers’ decision to stand by the policy platforms upon which they were elected.

In closing, I think this motion has raised a number of important issues about Australian and global security, about our energy future and the state of our federation. I thank Senator Allison for putting these issues on the Senate’s agenda. I think the Howard government’s pursuit of uranium sales to India fundamentally undermines the integrity of the NPT, and as such is contrary to Australia’s security interests.

Australia should focus on rebuilding the NPT, not undermining it further. We have real choices in Australia about our future energy mix. We reject the Howard government’s focus on going down a nuclear path. We have much better options. I think Australia should pursue the options of cleaner fossil fuels and renewable energies rather than endorse the government’s plans to turn Australia into a nuclear energy country.