Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too would like to speak on the dissenting report in relation to the ratification of the agreement between the government of Australia and the Russian Federation on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The primary objective of the Australia-Russia nuclear safeguards agreement is to allow Australian uranium producers to supply Russia’s nuclear power industry—that is, the civil nuclear industry in Russia—with our uranium under exceptionally strict safety guidelines. These conditions are designed to ensure that any nuclear material transferred between Australia and Russia will be used solely for peaceful non-military purposes.

As raised by the deputy chair of the committee, the coalition senators vigorously questioned the department in relation to a number of issues that were raised by other witnesses at the hearings. They included, it would appear, interestingly enough, people who may have had a serious bias, one might say, in relation to the issue at hand—people such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth Australia and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

It is interesting to note in the majority report that what seems to be the reason cited for not recommending ratification of this treaty is that our uranium is going to be used by the Russians in their military sector as opposed to their civil sector. This is just not true. The coalition senators, in their dissenting report, have relied upon the professional, unbiased, responsible evidence put forward by the department in relation to the issue raised. I will run through a few of those issues with you—in particular, nuclear energy as a greenhouse-friendly option. The government is promoting action in relation to climate change. What we have here is one reason to endorse ratification. The Russians have a serious problem with energy. Unlike us, they are prepared to do something about it in relation to uranium: nuclear energy. That will contribute to Russia’s diversification from fossil fuels with associated environmental benefits. Ratifying this treaty, amongst other things, will actually be in Australia’s national interests as it will allow Russia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollution. I am at a loss to understand why those on the other side do not see this as a reason to enter into the agreement with the Russians.

The coalition senators are also satisfied that, in proceeding to ratify the agreement, Russia has demonstrated a commitment to disarmament and non-proliferation obligations. This is not something we dreamed up; this was put forward in the evidence that was presented to the committee by the department during the hearings. The coalition senators believe that the evidence presented by the department outweighed not even evidence but what I would call unsubstantiated claims made by other witnesses at the hearings. I would endorse the comments made by the deputy chair of the committee that there are also compelling national interest reasons for Russia to comply with its obligations under this treaty, in particular in relation to its need to expand its civil nuclear energy sector. The Russians face an energy crisis. Why would they put the importing of Australian uranium at risk by not complying with the obligations under this treaty?

Another issue that was raised was in relation to the IAEA safeguards and whether or not these were stringent enough. Again, the coalition senators accepted the evidence from the department that these are internationally accepted standards. These are world-class standards, and we believe that they are adequate to ensure that the Russians do abide by their commitments under this treaty. In that regard, the coalition senators and members are satisfied that the benefits to Australia in ratifying the treaty and the evidence presented to the committee in support of ratification outweigh any concerns raised in submissions against the ratification.