Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Following Senator Milne reminds me why the Australian people will continue to reject the Greens. The Greens have a habit of extreme language, of opposing most developments in a modern economy. I was intrigued that Senator Milne accuses the government of fear tactics. The Greens trade on fear. Basically that is one of the leitmotivs of the Green movement—to trade on fear and to avoid wherever possible rational debate.

In the brief period that I have to debate this issue, let me go through matters which have been raised in relation to India. Senator Milne, why not put on the table exactly what Mr Downer said? Why try to invent comments from the government? Why try to make extreme comments? This is what Mr Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has said in relation to a press question about any prospects of selling uranium to India:

If we were to sell uranium at all, we would only do that under strict conditions we would negotiate with India as we have with France, Britain, America, China and so on ...

Nothing like that, of course, emerged from Senator Milne’s statement. Mr Downer went on:

... a nuclear safeguards agreement so we could trace that uranium and that uranium would only be used in several nuclear power stations, not used for any military purpose.

He went on to say:

But we haven’t made any decision to do this yet, even to negotiate such an agreement, because first we would want the nuclear reactors that we would sell the uranium for, to come under the strict controls of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and they would be able to send inspectors and inspect how the reactors operate and the like.

Let us get those facts on the table. In her remarks, Senator Payne added considerable details. In fact, there are various hoops that this proposal would still have to go through before any such matter could even be considered. For example, India and the IAEA must enter into new safeguard agreements, the Nuclear Suppliers Group must agree, by consensus, to make an exemption to the guidelines to enable international civil nuclear supply to India, and the so-called 123 Agreement that the US government has negotiated would have to be approved by the US congress. So there are many hoops to go through before such a matter could even be considered.

I was intrigued that the Labor Party sent Senator Evans in to debate this issue. It is a sensitive issue for the Labor Party and the Labor Party is hopelessly divided on this matter. Senator Evans, I think, as part of the leadership group, could be guaranteed to carefully tread the minefield as he went through it. Senator Webber is shaking her head. Of course, under the famous three mines policy of the Labor Party, which Senator Webber strongly supported, there was massive expansion of uranium mining in Australia, supported by a number of state premiers. Now, of course, the notorious, the useless, the pathetic three mines policy has been rejected by the Labor Party. But, in order to avoid upsetting some of their supporters, who are, as I said, hopelessly divided on uranium mining, they have said that, in relation to Western Australia and Queensland, it is a matter for the premiers. In the meantime, Labor Premier Rann is massively trying to expand uranium mining in that state. In listening carefully to the very moderate delivery of Senator Evans, I detected that the Hansard will show that. He said that the states do have a constitutional responsibility in the area, which is true, but he said he thought it would be better if the states of Queensland and Western Australia removed these restrictions and came on board. It was said very carefully and in a way to not highlight this issue. But what does this mean? In effect, it means Senator Evans was saying that Australia and the Labor Party wanted to expand the nuclear mining industry—that is the effect of what Senator Evans said.