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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Minister, exactly what safeguards has the government negotiated in its deal to sell uranium to China, and when will you release details of the deal? Does this deal include any improvement in China’s poor management of security and safety in their existing nine reactors, found by the United Nations to be the worst in the world? Does it include China getting rid of any of its nuclear weapons or ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Allison for that question. As I said yesterday, negotiations with China on a nuclear safeguards agreement have been under way for some time and, I am advised, are progressing well. It may be that, during Premier Wen’s visit next week, an announcement may be made in respect of that matter. I can also confirm, as I think I said yesterday, that any such agreement would be based on the very strict safeguards regimes that we have in place with four other nuclear weapons states—the UK, the US, Russia and France. They have been extremely successful for the long period that they have been in place, and China would be no different if such an agreement were brought about.

I note that the agreement would of course provide for monitoring of China’s compliance, and China has already agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of designated facilities. Other conditions that would apply would include no retransfers to third countries, no uranium reprocessing without prior Australian consent, an assurance that internationally agreed standards of physical security would be applied to Australian-supplied uranium, and detailed administrative arrangements setting out procedures on accounting for and reporting on Australian-supplied uranium. Any agreement that is negotiated between our two governments would be subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties process. So we do approach this matter extremely seriously. We will not tolerate any relaxation of what is a very strict regime regarding the export of uranium.

I should note that we are very conscious of the very significant demands in the booming Chinese economy for additional energy sources, given the growth of the Chinese economy. I would have thought parties of the Left, like the Democrats and the Greens, who profess to have an interest in issues of climate change and global warming, would want to see a country like China increasing its reliance on nuclear power generation rather than relying on coal-fired power generation, if they have any interest in containing greenhouse gas emissions. I do not know whether that is a factor in the thinking of the Democrats, but it is certainly a matter that we take into account.

We do think Australia, as a major resource holder of uranium and conscious of the demands for additional energy supplies in the world, should be in a position where it can properly consider requests for the supply of Australian uranium, given the impact on the emission of greenhouse gases that is involved in any developments based on coal-fired power. Therefore I would have thought the Democrats would be interested in China developing the peaceful nuclear power option. But I can assure Senator Allison and the Senate that we will have very strict safeguards in relation to any agreement to supply uranium to China for that purpose.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister may have forgotten that I asked about nuclear weapons and whether there are any undertakings by China in this deal or an agreement by China to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. He may turn his attention to that in the supplementary. I also ask: why is it necessary for China to come to Australia to explore and exploit uranium mining when Roxby Downs is set to increase, I understand, production fourfold over the next few years? If this uranium from Roxby is not going to China, Minister, to what country does the government intend to sell this exploited and explored uranium?

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sale of uranium from Roxby Downs is a matter for the owners of the Roxby Downs mine, which is now BHP, to do in accordance with Australian law and in accordance with any agreements Australia has with recipient countries. They must comply with the law, but the commercial arrangements are a matter for them. The agreements that are proposed with China do not involve any question of mining or exploration in Australia; they relate only to the question of whether Australian companies can supply Chinese power stations with uranium for use in peaceful power generation.

As I said to Senator Milne yesterday, the question of mining exploration is not a matter for these agreements. They are matters that involve state and territory laws governing mining and exploration, and of course Foreign Investment Review Board consideration of any such application involving foreign companies.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. Will the minister explain to the Senate how Australian uranium sales can play a part in building a clean energy, low emissions future for the world? Is the minister aware of any constraints on uranium sales?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ronaldson for his question. I think Senator Minchin has made quite clear in a previous answer to Senator Allison that those of us who care about ensuring we do not see global warming create dangerous climate change will explore every option Australia has available to it to contribute to international action, as well as pursue the $2 billion in domestic programs to ensure we do not see global warming contribute to climate change, which can damage biodiversity and ecosystems and put human settlements at risk through storm surges, increases in cyclone intensity and a range of other natural disasters.

It is incredibly important that we pursue all of these options. It is useful to add to the debate, at a time when the discussion about enhancing Australia’s uranium exports is in the press, that we understand the greenhouse benefits of that. For example, the uranium that is currently mined in Australia produces enough energy—around 400,000 megawatt hours—to substitute for fossil fuel produced energy, which is the major baseload alternative in the world, that would produce 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions a year. Australia’s current uranium sales are producing a massive and measurable benefit in abating and constraining greenhouse gas emissions.

To put another important statistic on the record, the uranium oxide that comes from that single mine expansion that Senator Allison referred to earlier in relation to Roxby Downs, which is being expanded by BHP Billiton, will substitute for the fossil fuel equivalent of the entirety of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis for decades into the future—550 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions saved because Australia is expanding uranium oxide mining at Roxby Downs.

It underscores the importance, the credibility and the honesty of the response that Premier Mike Rann made yesterday on national television when he said that the Australian Labor Party’s policy to stop the expansion of uranium mines in Australia—the antiquated three-mines uranium policy, which is pursued by the Western Australian government, the Queensland government and every other government with the notable exception of South Australia—is, to use his words, ‘antiquated and out of date’. It was a policy that was designed in an era when global warming was not an issue for the world.

Mr Beazley should understand that if he wants to talk the talk in relation to greenhouse gases he should immediately change the Labor Party’s policy to one which leads the world to a clean energy future. We know that within the Australian Labor Party there are some substantial opponents to the Beazley weakness on this issue. Martin Ferguson has said that the policy is anachronistic. It is. It is madness. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for the Australian economy, and Mr Beazley should get away from his 10-year record of weakness and vacillation on these policies and support a sensible policy that is good for the Australian economy and very good for the global environment.