Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is right, Senator Abetz. As you say, three mines were acceptable. Three mines was a moral position; four mines, no. Four mines were too much. That was too much. It did not matter how large those three mines got. In my home state of South Australia the Olympic Dam mine could get as big as it wanted. That did not matter. As long as it was not a separate mine—a fourth mine. That was not going to be the problem.

Now we see the government tie itself up in knots in relation to the export of uranium. China, of course, is okay. We expect from the Prime Minister that China would be an okay destination for uranium. India though—no, certainly not India; India would not be okay at all. Yet today we discover with the tabling of this treaty—Russia? We are not sure. That is right. We are not sure. China is okay. India is not. And Russia? It seems that the government is having a bob each way because the dominant left-wing members of this treaty committee have said no. They have said, ‘No way.’ Today what needs to happen is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and the Prime Minister to come out and clarify the government’s position on this important treaty. Tell us, are you for it or agin it? Will you ratify it or will you not? Because that is what the Australian people demand.

This treaty was negotiated in good faith with the Russian Federation, negotiated by the previous government to maximise our export opportunities but to ensure that we do so with the utmost of peaceful safeguards in place. That is why this treaty was negotiated by the former Prime Minister, the former foreign minister and the former government. There has been no word to date from the senior office-bearers of the new Rudd Labor government to say that they are against this treaty—no word at all. Instead, we have a collection of members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties telling us that the government is against it. The position needs to be clarified today and the challenge is on for the Prime Minister and his ministers to come out and clarify it.

Senator Cash and Senator McGauran have highlighted the fact that what we have in this report is evidence versus assertions—clear, reasonable, valid evidence versus assertions. We have evidence that was tabled from a number of bodies that demonstrates that this treaty puts in place the appropriate safeguards for Australia to confidently export uranium to the Russian Federation for peaceful purposes in the same way as we do with many other countries, including the aforementioned China. Mr John Carlson, of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, told the committee that another key factor in the reasons why this treaty should be ratified was the major upgrading of nuclear safety, security and safeguards achieved through international collaboration with Russia since the early 1990s. Since that period, there have been at least 17 significant multilateral and bilateral assistance programs aimed at improving safety and security in Russia’s nuclear sector, totalling well over US$10 billion. That is right. Significant work has been done over the years to improve Russia’s standing, noting that, up until the early 1990s, Australia had similar arrangements in place with the former Soviet Union. That is right. We had treaty obligations then with the former Soviet Union because we recognised that this was not a debate about nuclear weapons. The ship has sailed on that, I am afraid. When it comes to Russia and the former Soviet Union, the ship sailed many, many decades ago—long before I was born and long before Senator Ludlam was born. So this is not a debate about that; it is a debate about the effective and safe use of nuclear energy.

Energy is the important thing. I would have thought that a government who spends a lot of time talking about climate change policies, and the Greens, who spend even more time talking about climate change policies, would have recognised the fundamental importance of uranium to addressing Russia’s emissions into the future. And it is important, because Russia is the world’s third largest energy consumer—and I cite the report, which the government has chosen to overlook—and currently has 31 operating nuclear power plants, providing about 16 per cent of energy demand. We all know that Russia is a strong, growing economy, an economy that is one of the brick economies of the world. Brazil, Russia, India and China are all surging ahead, and all of them are expected to need significantly increased energy demands into the future. If they are to meet those energy demands, if their economy is going to keep growing as anticipated, and they are to do so without contributing to global warming and to climate change issues, they need to do so from clean technologies like nuclear technology. That is why Russia intends to build up to 40 new nuclear power plants to meet this demand. Quite clearly this is a very important treaty for Australia. Russia is going to be one of the world’s largest users of uranium. It is better that they source it from a country that insists on the type of safeguards that Australia does, and it is better for the Australian economy that they source it from a country such as Australia. There are great opportunities in Senator Cash’s home state—and your home state, Mr Acting Deputy President Bishop—of Western Australia. The safe exporting of uranium is of fundamental, critical importance to my home state of South Australia and for maximising our market potentials in these areas. Today, I again and finally urge the government, and the Prime Minister, to clarify their position in relation to this treaty and its potential ratification.

Lastly, can I say a couple of quick words about the treaty between Australia and the United States of America concerning defence trade cooperation. This treaty goes particularly to issues around procurement and trade in defence items and infrastructure. Again, it is very important to my home state of South Australia and it is very important to large tracts of the defence industry around Australia. It seeks to make easier the arrangements between Australia and the United States in terms of the personnel who are employed—to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place for those personnel. What is important are a couple of factors to be considered, though. We strongly support ratification of this treaty, but we also urge that the United States hasten its ratification of it. It is important that it get through, ideally, in the current congress and not be stalled until afterwards and into next year. Just as the Australian government is taking swift action, we urge the United States government to take equally swift action. We also urge the Australian government to look at the remaining conditions that may fall outside the reign of this treaty for defence industries in Australia, particularly as they relate to requirements to get exemptions from antidiscrimination laws and to get appropriate security clearances for different people working in those industries. I would urge the government to work with the defence industry in those remaining sectors to ensure that the burdens placed upon them are minimised as far as possible.